New Perspectives on the Nativity

New Perspectives on the Nativity

This page imemiollal~y le.fi blank

New Perspectives on the Nativity

Edited by J e remy Co rley

·" t t\ 1 clark

Published byT&.-T Clark lnte-rnationaJ A Ctmlhwmw Imprint

The Tower Building 11 York Road Lo ndon SEI 7NX

80 Maiden Lm u: Suite 70.J New York NY 10038

AU rights rc-scned. No part of lhis publication mar be re produced or transmitted in :my form or by any means. electronic or mechanical. i ncluding photocopying. r~cording or any information storage or rctric\--al "-ystcm. without pe rmission in \\'riling from th e publishC'rs. Manr Scripture quo1ations contained herdn a rc from the Neh' Rc\is.ed Standard Version L\iblc copyright 0 1989 br the Division of Christian Education of the ~:ation :tl Council oflhc Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. US<'d bJ.' pcrmis.1ion. All rights rest":n -cd. l'ermi.ssions to quote from coprright poems in Chapter lOarc listed on the Ackuoh·lcdgmcnu pages (pp. vii-viii), \\'hich comtitutc :t continuation of the COp)' right page. Copyright ~ j eremy Corle~·. and contributors. 2009

British Library Cataloguing-i n-Publication Data A catalogue r«ord for Lhis book is av--ailable from the Uritish Library ISBi\-10: 0-567.3-1200~9 ( Hardback} 0-5676-2904-X (Paperback) ISBN-JJ: 978-0-5673-1200·6 (Hardback) 978·0·5676-290.J.j ( J>apcrback)

l'rpesl"l br ~cwgt'n lm:ag-ing Systems J>\·tl.~d. Chennai. India Printed on acid-fn:e paper in Great Britain by

Contents

.-\dmowledgments

vii

.ibbrer.liaJlOIIS

ix

ContribuitJrs

X

In troduction

1

Jm·my Corley Chapter l: The Infancy Sto ries of t11c Gospels since Raymond E. Brown Hmry IVatubmugh, O.S.B.

Chapter 2: Luke's Nativity Sto t-y: A Narrnli\'C Reading

4

23

/a n B()Xa/J

Chapter 3: Prophe tic Voices o f Eli7.1bclh, Mary, and Anna in Luke 1-2

37

Bathara E. Md, O.P. Chapter 4: Zecha riah's "Bc nedicms" (Luke 1:68--79): A New Look at a familiar Text

47

LeonardJ. Maiuf Chapter 5: The Significance of the Inn for Luke's Jnfuncr Narrath·c Nicholas King, S.J

67

Chapter 6:

77

~lat tJ 1cw H~rnm

Chapter 7:

l- 2 and Roman Political Power

Carltr

~laking Sense of the

Matthcan Genealogy: MattJlcw 1:17 and the ThcoiOg)' of History Benedict T. \litrifmo, O.P.

91

Chapter 8: Matthew's Nativity Sto ries: Hi.sto tical and Theological Questions for Today's Readers Bemard P. Robitwm

110

\'i

Chapter 9:

CoutcJII.J

The Magi SLOI)' through the Eyes o f Pasolini:

A Bakhtinian Reading Ch,;Jtophn· Fuller

132

Chapter I 0: The Nativity in Recent British Pocll) :hm Loadts

148

Chapter I I : The MtL
165

john Kalln~r Chapter 12: Losing M}stcry in HistOI)" The Challenge of Recalling the Nati1i ty

ISO

ThomaJ 0'/.""ghlm Appendix:

Resemblances between Malthcw 1-2 and Luke 1- 2 Palrida M. McDoJWid, S.H.Cj.

200

Dictiotutr)' ofTtchniraJ Terms, Signijirani Petl&ns, and :htcitnl Texis

202

Bibtiogmf>h)' ofSttulm ""the Nalivily, 1990-2009

205

Sttbjrcl l nd,;

213

Acknowledgments

T his p:'lgc constitutes a continuation of t he co pr r ight page. Gr.\tcful acknowledgment fo r permission to quote from copyr ight poems in Chapter 10 is he reby no ted: To Richard l-lcndin a nd Pctc rloo Poets. Calstock. Corm\'all, for quot~~tion s fro m U. A. Fanthorpc•s poem, ''The Sheepdo-g ." pub lished in U. A. Fa ntho rpe. Chri.dmtt.f Poems (Cafstock: Pcterloo/London: E.n ith:'lrmo n, 2002). To Ben Kcnncd)'· ~hq• Bergin-Cartwright. and OxfOrd Unin -:rsitr Press for a quotation fro m Dav-i d Gascoyn c's poem. -Bir l h of a Prince." p ublished in D:wid G:tscoync. Col/t(,ltd Poems (Oxford : Oxford Uni,·crsity Prcs..o;, 1965). Also Lo lkn Kennedy. Mar)' Berg in-Cartwright. and Oxford University Press for a quotation fro m Andrew Hudgins' poem. "The Ccstcllo Annunciation." published in Uf)bo/diug My.1ter;r An Aut),oJpgy of Conll'mpcrtn)' Cltri.sfian Pu~try. edited b)' David Impastato (New York: Oxfo rd University Press. 1997). To Bruce Hunte r of O~w i d H iglnun Associ;ttes a nd Carcanct Press for quota· lions fro m Elizabeth J ennings• poem~. "The Annunci:nion ... WMcditation on 1he Nativity." an d "Christmas Suite in Fi,•c Mo vemenLS." published in Eli1.a bet h J ennings. Collected PPtmu (Man chester: Carcanel, 1986), no w reprinled in Elizabeth.Jen n ing.s. NnvCPIII!cted t'«ms. edited by M ichaelSd1m id t (Man cheste r: C:trcanet. 2002). To Quinn Marshall a nd New Directions Publishing C orporation. and to Alice Roser and Blooda xe Rooks. Newcastle UJlOn Tync, tOr quotations from Den ise Lcverto v's poe ms, - M~-lSS for the Day o f St Thomas Did)'lllUs," ·The Avowal." a nd "Annunciat ion," a ll fro m Den ise l.cvcrtov. Se-/erted POt:ms (New York: New Directions Publishing CorponHion. 2002). publish ed in the U.K. as New &luti"d Poems. cdiled b}' Pa u l A. Lacey (l\C'!wcaslle upon l )'ne: Blood axe, 2003): also for quotations rro m Ot.'nise l..ever tov's poe ms "On the M)'stc ry of t he Incarnation" and .. Nati,·ity: an Alta rpiece" from Denise Levcrto \·. A Door i·ll tht! 1-/it."t.' (New York: New Directions Publish ing Corporation. 1989) a nd "Lcuer to a Friend " fro m Denise Lc\'C'!rtov. f:t.'l''tling 7hu'n (New York: Kcw Dircc1ions Publishing Corporal ion, 1993): a ll thrc.'t.' poems pub lished in the U. K. in A Door ;u. lhe Hivt'/ f:t~t.'llitlg7frt;u (Newcastle upo n Tyne: Bloodaxc . 1993).

\'iii

J\c.know/('(/gmenl,1

To Paul Stark and I he O rion Publishing Group. for quotations fro m R. S. Thomas' poem s ··Cove n ante rs"' and ·Mother and C hild ... p u blished in R. S. T llomas. Co/Jul!"d Potms ( Lond on: Dent 1993). To Prof. Gcza Ve n ncs <md Foxcombe Pres..<;. Oxford. for a quotation from Pamela Vermes' poem · Think." p ublished in Pamela Ve nues. T/rl' Riddle tif the SfH1Yil.\' (Oxfo rd: Fo xcombe. 1993). [ ver y dforl h a.s been made to t race poelr}' cop yright holders. a nd if a ny malcri:d remains u nacknowledged the editor wishes to apologize and will supply full acknowledgment in a ny futu re editions of Ihe boo k.

Abbreviations

Fo r the' read e r 's conve n ie n ce. all j ourn;ll til lcs arc give n unabbrc:,riated . Th is list covers b oo k scr ic.s. BETL: Bib liothcc.a [ p h e m cridu m Thcolo g icarum Lovanic n sium BZNW: Beih <:fu: zu r Zeits c:h rift flir d ie ne utestame nt lic:h c \\'issen sch aCl FC!\TEC : Fe m inist Co m p a n io n to the N ew Testame nt a n d Ea rly Christianit y ICC: In te rnatio n al Critical Co m m e n tary J ~l Sup ple m e m : Supple m e nt to I he .Journa l fOr t he Studyof.Judais-m J SNT Su pplem e n t: SuppiC"mc nt to 1h e Joumal for 1h e Studr o f the Ne w T esta m e nt J SP Su pple m e n t: Su p p letn(.'lll to Ihe J o u rnal for th t' Study of the Psc udC'pig rapha NICNT: >-lew I nternat io nal Com m e nta r y on the Ne w Testa m e n t NIGTC: Ne w I n ternatio nal Greek Tex t Comme ntar}' O RO : O rbis biblic:u.s et orien tal is SBL DS: Socie 1y o f Bib lical LiLc ratu rc Dis..o;erl:tt ion Series \1\''BC: \Vo rd Biblical Co m m e nta ry \<\-'MANT: Wi ~sc nsc h a Ctl i c he Monogr.•ph ic n 7.um Allen und Neu c n Testa m e nl \\-'U NT: Wi ~s c n sc h aftl iche Unte r suchunge n zum ~cu e n Testame nt

Contributors

lan Box aU tcache.o; New Testament a t Sl Stc::phcn's House. University o f Oxford. UK. His publications include 71u Book.f of tire Nnv 7i>.dameut: SCM Studyguid.t (SCM. 2007) and Nn.u Tr.rtamenl !ttterpr~llllicm: SCM Stttcf.'\'guide (SCM. 2007). Warre n Carrer is professor of New Testament at Brite Divinit}' School. Tcxa.o; C h ristian University. Fort Worth. lJSA. His boo ks includ e Mnlllmo and Empin-: Initial ExjJ/()mtious (T rinitr Press International. 2001) and J olm and f.'mpi": Ini tial ExpfomtioJU ( New Yo rk: T&T Cl:lrk. 2008).

J eremy Gorley te~lchC"s biblical stud ies at Ushaw College. Durham. UK. H is publications includ e Bm Sira~f "/ixuhingo-n Fritmdship ( Brown University. 2002) and a booklet. lhdockiugiM Gus~ls: Fi~ Key~for Bibliwl luterprl'lation ( Liturgical Pr~ss. 2004). Ch1·istopher Fuller is assisL"tnl professor of Theology at Carroll College. Helena, Montana. USA. In 2002 he earned h is PhD f rom Graduate Theological Union. B~rkcley. with h is d issert:uio n on .. Pasolini as lnle r p retcr o f I he Go.spd of Malt hew... John Kahner is Virgin ia lhllou McGehee Professor of Muslim-Christian Relal ions at Rhodes College. Memph is. Ten nessee, USA. H is books include ltlwwellnstructs Isaac: An Introduction to llu Qur'a n for Bibltr Rmders ( Liturgical Pr~ss. 1999) and !UlJUi,·illg ofjost:ph: Geifi·ng to Know a Biblical Clwm
Leonard J. Maluf teaches p hilosoph}' and 1\C":w Te.stamcnl
Contrib-utOY'$

xi

Patricia M. McDonald, S .H.C .J .. leaches biblical stud ies at Ushaw College. Durlm m. UK. She is author o f God and lr'itJitrnce: Biblical Rtsomus jtJr l.iviug i11 a Small U'#nM ( H era ld ))rcss. 2004), as well sor of New Tc.stamcnt Sludics at Catholic T heological Unio n. C hicago. USA. Her books in clude Clwruing tlri! lkl/1!1' Part'! WOmen i·n the GtJ.sfJvd tJfl .ukl! (Liturgical Pres.,., 1996) an d 'JOking Up tlur Cro.u: NntJ '/l-stamnlt llllt!11JretatUms Through LminaatJd fl>miui.st £yr.)· ( Fort1·css. 200i). Bernard P. Robinson fOr merly taughl biblical stud ies at U.shaw Co lle~. Dur ham. UK. He is author of /.1rarl's MyJten'ou.f God: An Ana{wis of &me Old '/l-sitmumt J'v'llmlliVt'S (Grcvall & Grcvall, 1986). as wdl as m<my a rlides o n bibli· cal subjects. Benedict T. Viviano, O . P.. is Professor Em~ri t us of ~ew Tc.stamc:nt. at the University o f Fribourg, Switzerland. His p ublications include The Kiugdum of God in J.listo~y (Glazier, 1988) and MttUlutiJ ttud His H'l>rl.ci: Tlur Go.\·pel oftbe Open Jewish Chri.\'limu: Srudies in B iblical 71tet~logy (Academic Press Frihourg, 200i). Henry Wansbrough, O .S. B.. formerly master o f St Bc:net>s H all, Univcrsit}' o f O x fOrd , UK, was general ed itor of 71ur 1\:tttl./enualt:m Biblr. (Doublcda)/ D:trton. Longman & Todd. )985). H is books include T ire Liou and tlur BuJf: The GtJJf~tls of Mark and Lulu ( Dar ton. Longman & Todd. 1996) and Tlur f>a.uion and Death ofJesus ( O:trton. Longm;m & lbdd . 2003). and he is a fO r mer member of Ihe Ponlifical Biblical Commis...,ion.

This page imemiollal~y le.fi blank

Introduction J eremy Corky

The n :-~. l i vitr sto1; c:s hold a fascination fo r C h r istian s. as well as fo r m a n r in our society who d o not rcgul:tr ly allc nd churc h . Preach ers a nd teach e r s look in g ror f resh approaches to the Chrislm:•s stories will lind he re a n in-de pth look at 111a ny aspects of popula r d e votio n . In fact, this volume offe rs n e w p e rspecli\·e.s o n I he n ati,·it)' fO r anr reader wanting to go d eeper in to the C h risu nas mcs..•mgc. All ho u gh ··the re is nothing ne w undcrthesun'' ( Ecd ):9), thisvolume b o ldly cla im s to o ffe r ~n ew pe rspectives" on 1h e stories o fJ esus' birth. While noth in g is c ntirclr n e w. these cssa)'S d c"dop earlier a pproaches in no ,,d ways. oOCring a wide va rietr of pc rsp cctin :·s- litc rury. political, feminist. t heolo-g ical, poet ic. l.shunic. and liturgical- o n I he familiar C h r istm:ts story. 1l is a decade a nd a h alf since Ray-mond Bro wn prod uced the re vised version of h is landma rk wo r k 71u: Birth of tlur M t.uitlh ( 19 93). He nce th e ne w \'Oiume opens with Hc n r·y Wa n sbrou gh 's s urn:}· o f the last fi fteen years of scholarship o n the in fane)' narratives. I.J is survc}· no tes thal ,·arious new a ppro ach es h :we been t.;tke n f urthe r {especially lilcr.tr y a nd fe m in is t studit;s). wh c rc~lS usc of the n:tr r ativcs to establi.sh histor icity has receded in scholarlydisc u s.o;io n . The reafte r. four chapte rs dea l with Luke's in fa n cr story. bn Bo xall obser.·c-.s 1h ;tt narrative .studies arc now unco ve r ing its forcshadowings of the p as.o;io n and resurrectio n, but th ~at p ain ters su ch as Ghirlandaio h ad alread y m ade these artistic connectio ns lo ng ago. Barbara Reid sun'C)"S luke's p orlr.ty;tl o f three fC malc prophets ( Eiir..abeth, ~bry. and Anna). who prepare the way for the presentation o fj cstL'i as a prophe t in the rest oflhe Gospel. a n d who ofJCr role mo d els fO r fe male p reach ers today. Leonard Mah af offers a n e w unde r· stand ing o f Zccha r iah•s pro phetic ultc r.tn ce (the Bc n cdictus). b)' .situ ati ng t h is text mon~ fi r m ly in its J ewish backg ro und. Finally, ;-.:ich o la.s Ki ng reOcels on the .sig n ificance o f t he Greek term kllllt~vma (~ i nn ." or perhaps "b'1.ac.sl room") in Lukc•s second chapte r. PrdCrring the tr aditional re n d e r ing (~ i n n"). h e in d icalcs ho w this und e r sl:md ing pre fig ures th e late r j oumeys of j esu s -an d I he gospd m essage in Luke a nd Acts. The n ext fo u rarticlcs arc concern ed with Matthc w•s n a rnati\'c . Wa rre n Carte r reads M:nth cw 1- 2 against the b ackground of Roma n p ower in fi rst-centu ry

2

Jertmy U,rlr.y

Palestine, sho,,-ing how Rome's e m p ire is not the setting for a nice religious ta lc that is separate from politics. Ralher. the con fl ict bel ween 1he infant Jesus and the r u ling powca·s will be repeated m o re dr;umuically in the life and d<:ari ng jn som e of our earliest ~ew Testament texts ( Rom 1:3; Ma rk

lnsroduclitm

10:47). M oreon~r. the tradition o f the nati\'ity occur ring in Bethle h e m app<='ars in d epen dent ly in Mauhew a n d Luke, and d espite the p rop h cC}' of Mic. in cluding seve r al m embers of the Catholic Bib lical Association o f Amer ica. He re at Ush aw College I a nl grateful to )';llr icia McDonald and to John Marslan d for help with t h is pn~ ect. esp ecially with p roofread ing.

Chapter I

The Infancy Stories of the Gospels since Raymond E. Brown Henry Wansbrough, O.S.B.

On~ of th e g reatest scho l:us o f the g o spel infancy stories was Raymond R. Brown (1928-)998).' :mdJos.cph FitZill)'Cr condud cs his 2008 book ,,,.ith :H hort re m in isc.c:nce o f his lifelon g fr iend.? Fitzmrcr's penultimate section is d e voted to ~The Uqjust Criticism and Pc rsec:ul ion of Raymo nd Brown," in which he stresses Brown's p atie n ce a nd co urtesr. a n d h is re fu sal to rcptr in kind to the campaig n of abuse 10 whic h he was often subj ected . In the 160-p age .suppfemc lll added in the second edition of T he Birth Dj Jlur Mt!S.fiah (19 93). Brown doc.s in d eed reply t.o critic...;, shooting f ro m 1he h ip with o~jecti,,it}' and dcadlr accu r
5« R:wmond E. Brown . T lu Bht/1 rif t.hr M~.willlJ (N~,· \·Ork: Doubleday. l9i7; second expa nded edn: Ne,,·York: Doubleday. 1993). ~ Joseph A. Fitzmyer. T/11' !JJf"P"tr"iuJ1 r!fSrriplllrr (Nc,,· York: Paulist. 2008). 110-1 J. ~ Uro,,·n, m rt/1. 57J- 7J2. 1 }·or Brown'~ comme nts on RcnC taurentin. Stt ibid .. [)75 n. 8: on Michael Gouldl·r. see 1

ibid .. 619. ;. S
l ufnuq Stt~rii"J si·na Raymond 1~. Brown

5

l:ty precisely in th~ im pclus 1h a1 h e gave to such a m el ho d o f study. fi n allr libcr;uing Catholics from th~ shad ows of t h~ Mo d ernist con i roversies. The number and quatit)' o f th e contributions of Catllolic scholars to the d e bates I h at fOllow a re testimony to h is salu tary in fluence. 1l can never b e d o ubled that Ch r istian ity is a h isto r ical relig ion. found ed on what actu:ttlr happened-! h e ministry. death. a n d r e.o;ur rcction o f.Jcsus Chrisl. If these d id not happen , wthen our fa ith is va in" (1 Cor 15: 17) . In t he caS(.' oflhc gospel infan q· narnn ives. :\sin all accounts o f the b irth and in fa ncy o f men and women who h ave mad e an indelib le mark on 1he world. c.~xact h istoricity is not the 11Hlin interest. The im por l:m ce of the infancy nar r.\tives lies not in 1h e p recise h istoricitr of t he even IS b ut in wh;u these narra1 ives sh ow about J esus, or rath e r. about Ch rist ian belief in J csus.6 O n e instru ctive contmve r s}' appeared in t h e p ages of Uible Ueview fO r 2000 be tween Ste ven Mason and J e rome Murphy-o•con nor.; Thal J esu s \\'aS bo rn at Bethle h e m is one o f the few facts of the infancy s to r ies on wh ich Mall h ew a n d Lu ke agrce.11 Against i\'lu rphy-o•con nor, ~bson m a intain s that h istoricall}' the holy fami l}' lived in N:n:are lh a n d !h at the p lacin g o f Jesus• birth at Beth lehem is simply a statement th at h e- was (in some sen se) son o f Da \•id. Simi larly. Franc;:o is Bovon d eclares . .. The birth p robably wok p lace in Nazareth. By Luke's tim e. however. o n ly Beth lehem cou ld b e conside rc:":d as the birthplace of the Messiah ." 9 Etien ne ~odet also p o ints o ut that J oh n consiste ntly (john 1:46: 7:52: cf. 4 :43- 45) says that J c:o:us was f rom Nazareth . without :\ word a b out Beth leh em. ewn wh en it would h:we been appropriate.111 T h atJ C":sus was .:!1011 of David is a principal m essage of Matthew's first cha p1er. with it.s great dru m-roll of lsr.u-:lite h isto ry and its stor y of Lhc d iYindy in spired adoptio n of J e.o;us in1o the )·lou se of David. In this case theology will h ave sh a ped quasi-history. or (to p ut the matter m o re:': dearly) the t hcological truth th at J esus was !he fu H·IIImcnl of the prom ises to David and h is lineage was expressed hy the p lacing ofjcsus' birth al Bethle h e m. Each of the 1wo cvan gclisu will h ave used this location and d ecor:-1Lcd it in h is own way. expressing in a p icturesque: nar raLiYe form some aspects of the theological trmh about Jesu s 1h al seemed to h im important. 10 e:-.perience the Resur-rection personally). As the Birth fi lled one m lume and t he Dc:tt.h h \'0, perhaps the Re-.surrC'ction would h :l\·c- earned lhrc'e m lumes.

' Brown, JJMh. 5i6. :; Ste,'r"n Mason and JeromC' Murphy-O'Connor... Where was Jesus Born ~ 0 Uule Town of Nat.arcth or Hcth l ehem~~ Hibl
J.Jnny Uhnsbrougl1, O.S. /3.

6

Is there :ttl OI her sid e to the matter? ~'l u rph)'·O'Connor, residcnl in J erusalem for over forty rears a n d 1h e autho r of a stan dard g u id ebook to the Holy l..an d .11 appeals to th e evidence ofJustin Manrr (who came from Nab lus. a m ere threcda)' walk from Bclhlc h em). and lo Ihe Prol04'vallgelium ofjames, that already in the second century a p a rticu lar cave al Bethle h em wa.s venerated as Lhe b irthplace o f .Jcsu s. So old a lr.u-1itio n d c.sC"rvcsscrious conside r ation. and mar very well accord with the h isLOrical facts. In !his case. then. th eological interpretation is imporumt. b u t it is fo unded o n con linue. h owe ver. to search the Scrip tures a n d to have n ew in.sight.s. This essa}' attempt..; to p inpoin t some of the advances mad e between 1h e revised edition of Raymond Brown's work and the present d •ty. focusing on som e of the n ew insights that h ave been published. It c;mnot d aim to be compre h c n si\oe. Two obvimLo; lim itations (besides the aut hor•s incomp lete competence and th e res! r iel ions o f space) should be in d icated here. 1l is based only on works that were available lome in OxfOrd and J erusalem, a n d it con centralc:ot chicOr on articles in books a n d periodicals. lea,·ing aside ''en;e·b)' \'Crsc commentaries. of wllich ;t n u tnbe r of excelle n t e xamples h ;wc been p ttb li$hed .since 1993. A basic p reliminary is a neat a rticle by J ack Dean Kin gsbu ry o n th e second G reek word (ge11ni.s) in !\•l atth ew•s Gospd. Should the opening phr.t.se 4

4

4

u Jerome Murphr~o·conuor. Tho- N11ty u,.d; A11 OxJtml :\rrlm<'tJiagiu:rl c;,.jtJ,- (fifth c:dn: oxrord: o xrord University l'rt$$, 2008). It For im'Oil 1.1~ ; sec his \•' itgm ISiTtM 11,. llml Sit>~] '1 Mmy mul ffrr Srm j .,tu (Harrisburg: Trinity Pn::ss lntc:rnation:d. 1998). 78- .cf. my s.rction bc:lo,\· on ·Feminist Issues" (J>p. l9- 22). On the: other hand. a conet•rn to dt'l'end the literal historicity or Ihe accounu aJlpcan in the work of the d islingui.shed '-ncran Peter Stuhlmachrr. Dir Grburl f/t.f / mmmuu/: f/ir a 'ri/mttrh1.1gt'J£/Iirhtr, mtJ drm J.uluu·mul ;\lttU!tiilunJrms,f't'Uitm {GOUingen: Vandc-nhoeck & Ruprecht. 200;)). Gregory W. Da''"s abo criticizes ,,·hat he considen Brov;n's i1tdiiTer.::ncc lo h i ~loridly: "Whr Historidlr Still Matters: Raymond Bm\,lt and Ihe tnranq Narratives." Ptuijiut 19 (2006) 156-76.

l ufnuq Stt~rii"J si·na Raymond 1~. Brown

7

in Mall I: J be t ranslated WBook o f the birth of j esus Christ" or ~o r the ori gi11. 4. "? 1 ~ The fo rmer implies cmdle .slorics. ' ''he rc:as the latte r is wider and m o re r el atio nal. Ocspilt' Brown 's brusque r c;jection of the lafl.e r t ra n slation.•·• choice of the lalle r throws a n ood of light o n Matthew's first chapter. The birth itself occu rs o n ly in a subord in ate temp o r.tl clause in the fi na l \"erse o f th e c hapter ( 1:2 5). The gen ealog}' out lin es the relationship of .Jesu s to the gr-eat fi g u res oflsract's p a.s1. includ ing especially Abraham and Da v i d . 1 ~ ··Son of D:n·id " (1 : I) will b e a c rucial citle of.Jesu s fO r Mall h ew. In a n cxcellcnl use of n arrative theology Ki n~rsbu ry also shO\\'S th at the lat ter p art of Mallh e,,•'s first cholpter fu r ther clarifiesJesu s' or igin and fu ncl io n s . .Jesw•• ultimate o r ig in i.s in God. fO r the con ception i.s b)' the Holy Spirit (1 : IS. 2 0). is p rom ised in the Word of God ( 1:23), and occu rs without the n ormal hum a n m eans (1:25). More telling stjll is the concentra tion on the nam es of .Jesus in each .section: fi rst. that the child will be the Messiah (1: 18a, Matthew's comm e n t); second . that h e will b e J esu.s t he SaYio r ( I: ISb- 21. nar r.u ivc): third. th at h e is .. God wit h-us,. ( 1:22-23, Matthew's comm e nt): a n d fOu rth. that he i.s .Je.sus (1:24 - 25. nar rative). -T h e p u rp-ose o f I: 18- 25 is to hold up nam es o f .Jesus to theo logical reflection." conclud es Kingsbury.U• 4

4

4

Matthew's Use of Scripture Som e inte rest ing work h :ts been done o n Matthew's usc of Scripture as the background to h is inf:mcy nar rati,·e. First, we mar a..o;k: i.s chc shad owy fi gure ofjoseph in •he birth .stories so muncd because th is accor-d .; with history or for the s.ake of a n Old Testa m e n t mod el (Gen esis 37-50)? The n a m e of the New Testament .Joseph h as often been seen as c h osen for the guardian o f the hoi}' fa m ily after the m odel of the p atriar c h:•! .Joseph. who a l.so went d own to Egy-pt and looked after the m embers. of h i.s f:uni ly. It is ~-1lso relevant thatjoseph oflhe New Test:Hncnt was. like the Josep h of t he Old Testam e nt. a m an of dreams." Andries van Aarde a p plies the figur-e of Joseph rather d ifiCrcn!Jy. In a prel im inary article in 2000. fo llowed by a b ook in 2001, he subo-gests that the J osep h o f the in fancy stor ies is no more than an ethical par ad igm: "To m e it seems .Joseph was a legend ." 1a. h is. rat he r. Joseph of 1 h e O ld Testament wh o ll

Jack Ot"an Kingsbury, ~Th e" Birth N:tr-rath"C' of Malllww," in 11v: G'"'l"' (IJ Mnuluw .-., Canr11t Stmty. cd. Da,•if.l E. Aunt" (Grand Rapids: U rdman.s., 2001}. lfl.:l - 65.

u Brown. Jlirdt. 49. I> Ou the" btcncalogy in Matt 1:1-17. ~e lkncdict T. Vi,·iano's chapter in the prcsc:ru \'Olutu c.

" Kingsbury. ~ Birth Narrali,'<"." 160. 11 Brown. 11Mh. 599. IS Andries van A.ardt". ~Th e" C:trpcntds Sou (MI I S: ~3j : J oseph and ]c-.su.s in the Go.s.pcl of MaHhcw and other text.s.." Nl't!l"·'·tmrrr•1tir
s

J.Jnny Uhnsbrougl1, O.S. /3.

is the model fO r J esus him ~el f. Van Aardc p icks up an old article by Aub rey \1\''. Arg')'IC o n the patristic I radition a bo ut Joseph as forcshad owingJesus: 1h e patriarchal Joseph was ··righteous, afflicted :lnd sold by h is brethrcn,.sle~ldfast in resisting temp tat ion. u •Yustly accused. a r rested. imprisoned. hutniliated. but a fterwards exalted, the benefacto r o f o thers. tender-heancd. forgi\'ing h is brethren who had wro nged h im ." 1!1 This connection becomes a ll the more like ly from Lhc prominence enjoyed by .Joseph in J ewish litcmturc of the time, b oth c:'lnonic.. t :'lnd cxtnl-canonical, whether he is alluded to by name (Sir 49: 15; I Mace 2:53:Jubi/no;S 39-43) or is left unn:ltned (Wis 10:1 3- 14: I EmKir 89:13). Argyle poinls o tll the d ose simi· larity in the word ing ofJoseph 's escape from Potip har 's wife (Gen 39 : 12) a nd that of the roung man in the Garden of GcLhsemanc (Mark )4:52). J osep h is especially p romin e nt in ihe Tl:stameuts ~lfthe TwdtN' f>atrimds. dated by nm Aarde to t he late second cenlttry BCE. but by o then; well into the Christian e ra. This :111 r.tctive theory b ecom es slighLI)' difflcull in \ 'Olll Aa rdc•s applicatjon . He uses it to explain dcntclll.s in J esus' behavior. rmtintaining that j esus was abandoned by I h is p.arad igm (or e\·cn p aragon). Joseph. This would expl:tin J esus• tetlsion with h is own fam il)·. his defense of the fatherless. l1is calling God h is fathe r. a n d his unyicldingjudgmcnt on divorce. O f grcate1· sign ific:lllce. but not unrelated. is work done on the fulfilhn e nt of Scrip ture in M:mhew's infan cy stories. This is p art icularly important for M:nthcan f()nnula quotations. f\•l atthew e mplors Scripture no t to show that the future h as been fo re10ld . btu in the sense of IY(lOiogical fulfi llment: the Scripture establishes a significant pattcm repeated but surpas..o;ed br ;-.lew Test:uncnl e\'CilL, 17. 23). This does no t m ean that the Old Testa m e nt text predicted what '''as to happen. that it -really.. rcfern:d 10 the New Testam ent event. b ut that ihe: New Testament C\'Cilt p rovides ··the fu llest cxprcs.o;ion of a significan t p:ttte:rn of e vctlls ...!N a divinely itltcnd ed pattern of events. established at the time of the scriptural text. So the Immanuel prop heq ( lsa 7:14) was not spoke n '''"ilh lsai;•h ·s tongue in h is c h eck becaus-e h is h c;lrers could not und erstand the full meaning o f his words. Rather this established a p alle m : the king was f-a ithless. the mtt ion was under thrc;tt f ro m ~Ill im perial power. a nd the birih of Immanuel W
tt

Aubrey W. Argl·le. J ose: ph the: Patriarch in Pat rilitic Tr.achiug ... r::~pmitt~ry Ti•r.di1 ( 19!>6) 199- 201. hc:rc: 99. ~I. Hamihon,Jr., .. .The: Virgin Will Concci\'c': Typological Fulfillmc:nl in Matthew :18- 23 ... in J111ilt •rpo11 flu: R1,rk: Studir.• ;, t/u Gmpd t~jMtllthrr11, cd. Daniel ~I. Gurtne-r and j ohn Nolland (Grand Ra pids: Ec
" ·\:tme"S

l ufnuq

Stt~rii"J

si·na R aymon d

1~.

Brown

9

was to .sub mit to th e im perial po we r (Aug usllls in J esu s' time, o r Do mitian in Mallh c:w •s) . T he re is a lso a n escalation in 1\•latthc:w's case over Isa iah 's: u nli kc lhe g ir l o f Isaiah's He brew p roph eq . Mary re m ain s a virg in in h e r moth· e rhood : the ddi\'e r a nce is no l fro m hostile p o we rs bu t fro m sin : a nd whal is pro m ised is not d ivine p rotection. bu t d i\'in e presence-the t h e me t h at runs through M
!!

Here I am indebted lo lectures delivered in \\'a les by Rk hard (Dick.) Fra nce in Ma rc h 2008; .s.tt also Rk hard T. France, frut.~ tmd th<' Old To.t4wtolt (London: Tyndale Press, 1~71) .

i'?

MaMien .f. J. Me nke n. "The Sources or the Old T<:$tamc:nt Quot~n ion in Malt he\,. 2:23." J mmJt// 'if BihliMI I..ill:m l •tll' 120 (200)) 451-US.

10

J.Jnn y Uh nsbrougl1, O.S. /3.

While Men ke n prefe rs the inte rprda tion using tuh i·1: he does m e n tio n th:u the great sc h olar Marie:Jose ph Lagrange alre(ldy in 1923 o p ted fOr the third solul ion:u Naza reth '''as :l conte mptible little place (cf. J o hn 1:4 6), n o t m e n· tioncd in t he O ld Testa ment no r J osephu.s. no r any secular source unt il the rourth c c nLUij' CR. If t h is third solu tion is correct. Mauhc'" i.s referring not to a n r s pecific p assage in one o f the prop h e ts. bm to a ll t he passages in the prophe ts ( he nce t he phmll) in whic h the Messia h is s;tid to b e humble a nd despised a nd su ffe ring fOr h is p eople. Here ag ain the explanation is t)'pologi· cal: the O ld Testam e n t pro\'ide.s a conte xt into whic h J e.sus fi ts and '''h ich he sm·p assc.s.

T he Story or the Magi \<\'he n we co m e to Matth e w's .second chapte r. some d iscu ssion h as cc:n tercd o n the sto r y o f lhc journe}' and \'isit of t he magi. It seems to be ge ne rally accepted that this story is some what mudd led. a nd that the b est so lution is to as.~ unu: th;tt ~·hLt t hc''' combined two sources. The first of Lhcse sources accord s wi1h h is m idrashic t re~llment o fJ csus' b irth and infancy based o n the b irth and infa ncy a nd mirac u lous esca p e of Mo ses. It is this that )'ields Herod 's pl:tn to kill 1he n cwb om lead e r and the hotr fam ily's esca p e into Egypt until th e angd ic m e.s· sage o fM:HI 2 :20 (m irroring Exo d 4 :19) bids the m re turn. By way o f co ntrast. the story o f t he m agi and th e sta r is e n t irely d iffe re nl. b ased o n the sto ry o f Bal:\am, the Ge ntile who hono rs lsracl.:u The com b inatio n of Lhe two sto r ies poses diffic ulties: as Brown notes. He rod's fru stm t ion ·· becomes ludic ro us wh e n t he way to the ho u se h as hecn po inted o u t by a s tar whic h came to r est o ve r iL. and whe n the p a1h to t he door o f t he house in a small ,·ill
~ M ari-c:JoSt~ph Lag-range. L O:Vtwgill' .•rltm S. Mau fli,.,, ( Pari$: LccofTre. I92:J). ~~ Brown. !Jirtll. 1 1~-1 6 (MO$C:$j and 190-96 (Bala.am). For some enlightening background

!S !I>

on thl" Balaam trnditiom from the 'liugum rt-.m•t [Grand Rapid$: Bater Academic. 200!)). 17-.15) can hardly be used to conlr.ldict this. He poinL" oul that in the a ncient world st:trs we rt: regarded as li\·ing bc-inJ,>s. and therefore $Uitabll" as guides. On the vexed astronomical question, he wittil}' concludes. *We can not look for an :mgd th:at h:ts come a nd gont"."

l ufnuq Stt~rii"J si·n a Raymond 1~. Brown

II

send h is h ighly d evdopcd secn~ l service 10 accompany these well-info r med strangers? Brown propo~cs an o utl ine of the o rig inal m s criticism I h at the m agi slo r y can n e ver han : existed in d e pe n dently. b ut ~ is designed with a view toward t he He rod episode. The Magi a re Gentiles; that required some fO rm o f con fron t ~nion wit h l.smd."'?l>This forms th e: b a~is o f h is a rticle. :md h e g in :s a list o f refe re n ces (of variable prob ali n~ value) lo p assages in the New Testamen t wh e re there is a correlation ore,·en parallelism between J ewish and Gcntjle response~ toJ csus.111 main tain ing that thr o ugh out the New Tesl:lmenl h onor d one to J esus f ro m Gentiles must alwa}'S be con fro n ted by ~j ec ti on f ro m IsraeL This d oes not. lo my m in d , scu lc- the question. It wou ld be possible 10 a rg u e by the sam e logic th at there shou ld h a ve been :. stor)' in Luke where the in fantjcsu.s. ackn owled ged by the poor ;wd d estitute shep he rds. was also rejected by the rich. A case can be mad e that this contrast between two personalit ies (or· groups) is typically Matt hcan .lQ In Matthew's own long parables he repeated!)'· o r even invari:\b ly, con trasts good and b ad c h aracters. Furthe rmo re, the contrast in this sto ry at lhc beginning o f lhc Gospel between ho.'>tilit)' from the rcpresen l:ltin:·s o f Israel ( He ro d and h is co urt) and supp01·t f ro m Gentiles is ech oed emp haticallr at the e n d of Matthew's Gospel by the contrast b etween cond em n atio n by Israel (Caiaphas and h is co u rt) and Pilate's insistence on J esus' in no ccn ce. The o n ly real d ifficu lty a bo ut Brown·s recon strucljon of a n o riglnall)' in d e pe n dent m agl story is h is in clusion in it of the magi's stop o ff in J e r usalem and their q ucstion .' 1 In this reconstn1ct ion these a rc- left in the a ir. They arc dear!}' desig ned to d icil the respon se fr01n Herod an d his cour t. a n d h a ve n o sense: apart fro m this. 4

4

4

4

4

4

4

Luke's Language The language of the Lukan in fancy n arrative is m ost p ainstakingly exam ined by C h a ng WookJung, pri ncipally 10 establish ' ''hether Lu ke is im itating the Old Testamenl or tra nslati ng from a Sem itic sou rce, but also to d iscern his exact relationsh ip to the Septuagint (LXX). Is he using the LXX o r simply c:::opr ing a Semitic .style? Earl)' in the book he criticizes Brown for n ot surtkie ntly 4

4

r. Bnw;n. HMJ1, )92. ~ Joh n !9 JO

~

Nollancl, l he Sources for Matthew 2:l-12."

Cfllltniir Hibliml Qouut<'rly

60 (1998)

283-JOO. Ibid .• 289 n. 19. Michael Goukler . .UidrmJumd t ." litm ;, .\fallhn •• (London: SI'C K. l9i4). :>5. Gouldds dcmonmation (ibid .• 238) of the perva.sivene.s.s of Matthean .style makes il nlrcmd~· perilous to aH.::mpt a n exact reconstr uction of anr underlying oral sources.

12

J.Jnny Uhnsbrougl1, O.S. /3.

d istinguish ing Sem itisms and Scptuagin talis-ms. a nd fi n ally fo r abando n in g the atte mpt to d isting u ish SC"mitisms fro m instances o f precisely Scptuag intal in fl ue nce. r ei r in g too hcal'ily on h i.s dose friend Fitz.mycr's acknowled ged sk ills as one of t he fo re most Aramaic .scholars in t he wo rld .!t2 J ung himsdf begins with t he essential task of ma king a scri('s of impo rlant definit io n s. d isti ng u i:<>hing ''hard core Septuagin tnlism.s"' fro m ··seco ndary Scp1uagintali.sms.""" The former exprc.o;sions. cou ched in slig ht!)' abnormal G reek. c ::1n be explain ed only as depe nde nt o n the LXX. He dislingu isllcs also · unsu ccessful S ep tuagin t:, li.sms," :l numb<"r of which do occu r in Luke 1-2. cithc r because the author d oes n ot who lly succeed in imitating the LXX or h~cau se he d elibe rately adapts il (an c:xample is the phr;tsc *crmreiw in r our womb" in 1:31. whe re Luke p rdCrs Lht· word he regu larly uses fo r ~con cei\'e,. to the nonnal s~ptuagi ntal idio m "bave in your wo m b"'). J ung also d isting uish es ~ h a rd core Lukani.sm s" f rom -.secondar y Luka n ism.s." The fo nne r a re express-ions freq ue n t in Lu ke o ULsidc t he infancy n a r r ati\'es. but occurring elsewhe re in the New T csUlmc n t only lwice or less. wh ile t he Iauer o cc ur m o re frcqu e nlly o u Lo;idc the l.uka n wr it in gs. Throug ho ut t he bo ok t he a rg ume ntat ion is carefu l and exact, tho u gh admitted ly t hen: are many instances whe re othe1· scho lars may evaluate the conflicting e \'idcnce diffCre nt lr. Afte r m inutely discussing three q u o unions fro m I he Old Testame n t and three allusio ns to it a n d fo ur othe r freque nt p h rase.s.Jung concludes th at the re are no "hard core Scm itism s.. in Luke J-2. but that all Scmitisms a rc in fa ct Sc puaagintalism s.!l 1 So the in flu e nce of the Old T estam e nt o n Luke 1-2 is uniq u d)' t hrough the LXX. Howe ver. since nonLuka n ism.s (phrases t ha t a r c disti nct lyd iff~ rent fro m Lukan u sage elsc \v-he re) do occur,Jung concludes lhal Luke is using a wriuc n source . iLsdfimitatin g the L..XX, thoug h he in sisLo;, quo 1ing Ma rk Coleridge. l.h ou Luke \v-as "m aster" of his .sourcc (s). ~ Thr ee criticism s of this pains ta king a nd enlighte ning anal}'sis m ight b e m ade. First. th e d ;tLabasc fo r the conclu sions i.s persuasi\'e but some what narro w. Secon d . i1 is unfonunatc that no specific attention. o ther th:ul p assin g rem arks, is g iYe n to the Luka n Canticles. 1l wo u ld haYe been e nrich ing to appl)' to the m thc- c:ard u l lcchniques or ana lysis in o rder to sec whethe r a ny ad \'ance m ight he made o n thc i1· authorship. Did Luke com pose t he m himself? Arc t hC)' Maccabean h ymn.s? H ave th ey b een adap ted t.o their context? Wh)' d o

~ Ch.a ug~WookJung, T ill' O •·igi11a/ 1-AIIg utiJ['t'.{t/u Lrdrtm !Jifll •I•',Y Nmnrliw 267: N<.'W York: T.\'T Clark. 2004). :S4- 36: cf. Bro;,·u. Wrtfl. 623. ~

(JSNT Suppkment

Fo r the phrase "hard core' & ptuaginta lisms" (as lOr the phrase' · hard core l.uka ni.s.ms") it \\'Ould ha\·e been hdprul to indicatc that the picturesque d ang mean.s t hat no other ('Xpla uation is adequate. ~ Jung, L.tmg•mg.-. 2 10. ~ lbitL, 2 14: cf. Mark Coleridge. Tit" Jtirllt '1 If., l.•tlum Namllhv USNT Suppleme nt 88: Shefll dd:J SOT Press. l99J). 17.

l ufnuq Stt~rii"J si·n a Raymond 1~. Brown

13

1hey range so widely. a\\"a}' fro m the d ominant Chri.stology of the narrative? (L is re mar·ka blc. ;ts lllr ike MiiLmann-Ric:hcrt observes. th;ll in n cithe1· Magnifica t nor Bc n cdictus is there mention of or allusio n to Ch rist.~" Coler idge in fac t su ccinctlr shows th:H t he emphasis o f the Magnificat is on God . of the Be n ediclus o n I he Bap tist. and o n ly o f t he l':unc Dim ittis on Jesus. ~• A third crilicism may be made. [ ven in such a speciflcall)' ling uistic study I he re m igh1 h ave been mom fo r more d iscussion or the theological n:;•sons why Luke emp loyed a Septuag intal style o f Greek in the infancy narrative more 1h a n in Luke chapters 3 -24 and AcLc;. J ung gene ra lly follows the scholarly consensus h e re: ~Luke inte ntionally im itated LXX strlc in o rder to sh ow a dose connection between the OTand lhe fi rst pan or the GospcJ ."~ Whr d id Luke wish Lo sh ow t h is dose connection. and he1·e alon e? If Luke wished to present these 1\\'0 chapters a lm ost as par t o f the O ld Te.o;tam cnl. p erh a ps e ve n as it.s conclusion. is h e con cerned with t he prob lem o f God 's justice, d e monst.r;lting that the inclusio n of t he Gentiles docs not imply t.hc exclusion of Israel. o r is he showing the continu ity o f Old Testam e n t values a n d p ie ty. particularlr 1he option fO r the poor o f the LORD, into th e pe riod of fu lfillm e nt? F;lsc::inat ing. the refore. but cer t.ain l}' beyond th e scope of this study, would be a detailed im·e..o;t ig
Analysis of Luke's Sources A sharp d in!rgen ce o f approach lo Lu ke 's sources for lhe infa n cy narratin :"J becomes visible betwee n h\'O veteran exegetes. Fr.mc;oi..o; Bo mn and MarieEmile 1\oismard . Bomn has long been a m~jor pla)'er in the Lukan field . h is commented b ibliographit$ of the last t.hirty-three. the n the l
Ulril;e Mittmann·Richert. Mllgnijikqt •md Hnw/iktru. (WUNT 2/ 90: Tl1bingcn: Mohr Siebed. 1996), i.

~· Coleridge, Hil11t. »: juug. Ltmgwtgr. 213. "" A const~lnt t heme h:ts been ll1a1 despite hili claims to rdiabilitr as a historian in 1:1-4. l.ukc·s grasp of t he past is le~ reliable than of the later hi~torr. II set"ms to me that t he

1 "

ve xed quc:stion of the date or t he census is firmly St"tded hr Nodr.t'li demonstration !hat Q uirinius' ct"n.s:u:s w~ls part or t he rt"organization a ner the remO\·aJ or Archclau~. Luke':s purpo:sc: in including tllc: census was lo show Joseph ·:s peaceful oberlit•nce to the Ia\\". in contr.ut to the rebdliouli Zealot mm·cm('ttl th~u \,·a~ i nitiated at lllili lime: (Node!. fti.r/(Jrirnl. 109. 123). It 1vas also, to be surt'. art, PA: Pickwick. 1987): idem, /.1•.k " tM TII«JI'Jgitrn: 1·1 fl.r ·f1v,. lO·m:~ off(,-.mmh. /fJJ0-100' (Waco: Baylor Uni\l'Nity Prl':S$. 2006).

J.Jnny Uhnsbrougl1, O.S. /3.

14

and IAtkc 1-2.'"11 An interesting argume nt for Luke's part in the composit ion of the whole is Bovon 's insistence lh :H the whole thrust of Luke 1:5-80 must he com p :.u cd 10 the story or Corneliu.s in the AcL" o f the Apostles. which was cle;,rly composed b)' Luke: 11

I. A. ··p r e-Ch ristian" righteous person ( Zcchar i ~~h/Cor nel iu.s) rece ives a di,,inc mt;ssagc. 2 . At almost the same time a ··Ch rist i::m" figure (Mary/ Pc:Lcr) rccc in~·s a divine m cs.. oagc.

3. The n the two figures m eet. 4 . Flnallr the e ve m s already ann ounced occur. One difficu lty about this structure is 1h aLZechariah a nd Mal)' :ue not acltmlly recorded a.s mee ting in Luke 1:39- 56 {thoug h ~hr)' m ccL-: Zechariah's wife Elizabeth) ! An ad vant.agc. however. of Bovon•s approach is that it p lact;s a ll the stress on I he role p layed by the stories in I he development o rChristology. Hisloricit}' plays no p a rl in h is approach. Whalever the origin of the stories of the Bapt ist ;md o f.Jesus. the step p ar.tllcl between th e m is Lu ke's work. The 1997 work of Boismard o ffe rs a strong co n trast. 4 ~ After so m a n y writings in whidl h e seems lo :til r ibule t he authorship o f more <m d more of the New Testament to Luke. it is surprising to sec a reversal of this tcndenq. For man}' dC"'c;tdes this do}'en of the F1·cnch Biblical School in J erusalem continued to give g reat authority to the Narnumy of PefrJ.t. a m;u mscrip t of a ro und 1400 CE. once owned by 1he Caro lingi;m d iaris1 Sa mud Pepys, and n ow ho u sed in 1he Pe p y.s Librar}' at Magdale n e College. Cambridge. It was g iven its first s.cholarly editio n in 1922.44 Hoismard is aware thai it may seem surprising 10 set a bo ut reconstructing t he Gospel o r Luke from a medieval document, p robably tmnslated into English rrom a French text t.lml was itself d C"'pend e m on thC" Latin tr.mslal ion. For 1his r eason his e xposit ion is o rdered psrchologica ll)' rather tha n logically. Boism:ud's thesis is that Pro to-Lu ke (;m cadicr version of the Go.spel) h ere developed :t d o cument produced by the d isciples of John the Baptist. This Bap tist documcnt was nm a C hristian text. It d escribed the annunciation to Zechariah. the' b irth. circumcision and naming o r John, p resenting john ~ls the unique savior. The re are some inte resting variations rrom the f;unili ar story. Zechariah is now the h igh priest. a lone behind the cur l:lin or the Hot)' of Holies o n Yom Kippur (the Da}· or Recon ciliatio n). which is why he is praying 11

80\'0n, C.mJm#'J Jt,ry. 44 (with an a ppeal to Rudoii' Buhmann}. ibid., 29. u MarH:-f.milc Boi.smard. J.'i vfmgif, (/" l h!ftt~~r.: ( J.ur 1- 2 ) Jl!lon hepwt<1-L11r ( Paris: G:abalda, 1997). " Margery Go.,to . <'d .. Tlu P"f'J·•itm Goi.JN!I NtrrmMJ (E:trlr English Text Societr 1.:.7: London: Oxford Uniw:rsily Prc:ss. 1922). It

l ufnuq Stt~rii"J si·n a Raymond 1~. Brown

1.5

for the peop le. and the p-eople a rc waiti ng outside. The angel a nnounces. ·Your pr~\}'er will b e heard, and you a nd many will rejoice . tOr he lJohn ) will s.:we the people." Elizabeth is not sure o f h e r pregn ancy until the in fant leaps in h e r womb (why?). at wh ich she. not Mary, p ronounce.o; the Magnifi ca!. gi,·ing thanks fO r the release rrom he r stc r ifity.4.;. According to Boism a rd 's theor y. th e evangelist Luke took this Bap tist docu· mcnt. ex purgated it of the attribution of :>alvation to I h e Ba p tisl. and u sed the in cidents as ~l b:lsis for comp:uison with J esus b}' m eans o f a sim ila r sci of scenes. in each of wh ic h . to be sure, Jesus has the ad ntntabre. As Boism ard feared. this outline of Ihe development of Luke 1- 2 d oes .seem fa r fetchcd . b ut tlte d etails arc not without so1nc insights. Fo r instance. why is Zt•ch ariah struc k d umb fo r h is que.o;t ion. while Mary is pn1ised fO r hers? Because at Lu ke 1:34 Ma ry merely ask..o; f()r an ex plan atio n. · How this is to be."' whe reas Zecharia h at 1:18 h ad truculent ly asked. "How um this h a ppen?"' The local census is exag gcnued lr spread to "a lithe world .. in o rder to e n sure t h at t hese evcnts involve the wh o le world, wh ich is to b e s:wed.l6 The h istorical d ifficu lt}' is cheek ily so lved b}' the surmise th:ll Quirinius' munc was added latc r. 4; A sim ilar thr ust in th e sam e d irectio n . th ough vast ly d ifre rent. is p rovided by Ric h ard Dillon's a r ticle o n I h e Ucnedictus .•!l There the suggestion a ppears th at the Bened ictus (without Luke 1:69- 70) was origin ally the d im a x of a Baptist story. wriltc n up after the d cstr unio n of the Tem ple in 70 CE. Th is stor y '''as complete in itself. cdcbr";tting the U:tptisl 's prepar.1tio n for the com ing or th e LO RD God. The Jc.sus p a rt of Luke 1-2 was mod eled o n this: the intr usive verses 69-70 were add ed (Jesus as the son o r David becom es an important the m e in Acts 2:26- 35: 13:23. 32-..'H. a n d the verb emp lo}'ed in Luke 1:69 fO r the horn o r Oa,,.id , *raised up,"' is m ost surp •·isingl}' the \'erb techn i ca ll)' used for the resu ncction or.J esus)~ a nd the Ba p tist•s task of p reparation was now to be und erstood of the Lo rd jesus, who wo u ld al.so ach ie\'e the "for givene:!:s of sins." A fu rther interesting detail is that the Bened ict us and the Magn ific::\1 arc compared in structure: the former ralls into two strophes (o r poet ic sectio n s). the first ccleb r.tl.i ng God 's m ercy to Israel, the second God's task fort h e ch ild. B)' contrast, in the Magnifica t the o rde r o f the two stroph es is reYcrscd. the fi rst strophe d welling o n God•s choice o f the in diYidual. the second on God 's m crq to Israel. Dillon adm its th at other structures mar also be envisaged . 4

4

4

4

4

4

The thr<'e ca n ticle-~ :are mentioned, btu in t he l"'pp·ill" N11rmm•y thdr text is not gi\'t'n; ho\,'C'\'e r. the M:tgniflcat is attributed to Elilahcth in t hree l:ttt' manu:scril>ls of the Gospl'l. •r. Boism:ud. Chw11gil... SS : but Luke makes a habit oft-x:tggt·ration. a nd easily slip:s in Mall." 1: Ibid .. 88 n. 1. 1 " Richard J. Dillon. ''The: Ben edictu.s in 1\-l icro· and Macro Context." Cru1,oli.. JUblit:t~l ().utlrt~•·l)' 68 (2006) 4.:J7- 80. For a It('\ \' imc:rpretation of the lk nt'dictus. seC' Leonard .J. Malur s chaplcr in this \'olume. 1"

4

J.Jnn y Uh nsbrougl1, O.S. /3.

16

UO\·on h as some fascin :-tting obscn·at io n s o n th e two m ain canticles. In h is vie w. the Magnificat orig imued in Pharisaic circles. for alm ost c·vc ry Iin c has a parallel in t he ProlmsoJSt~ltmum. whic h rd lccLo; this b ackgro und. It was adapted o nly s light ly by Lu ke:. Co r il surp risingly has no m e ntio n o r a c h ild o r o f giYing birth ..., The Be ned ictus . on t he othe r h a nd . is a poem of the Baptist move me n t. lightly r e-touched b)' Luke.50 Bo mn also d lCctivcly l'clatcs Simeon '.s camide to the welco m e g i\'Cil to t heir rclllming son s by t he aged Joseph ( G~:: n 4 6:30) a nd To b it (Tob I I :9 - lf')) , as well as l.o sim ila r motifs in Gree k literatu r e (the 1\'' 0 o ld servants of Od)'Sscu s).;,1

Step Parallelism and Ch ristology in Luke Several autho rs go beyond Rarmond Bro wn's presc nta t ion of the ste p parallel· is m in Luke 1-2 b e tween the Baptist and J e..o;u s.;.? Brown presented Luke's co m· parison o f tile two hanno n ious fig u res as at least p a rll)' inte nded "Lo pe rsuade unco 1wen ed d isciples o fJ Ba p [i.c .. J ohn the Baptis t) . Yet, <'IS tim e \\·e m on ;md some o f these unco 1wer1ed d iscip les seemingly turned ho stile to t he Christian mo ve m e n t, the motif of subo rdinating J Bap beca me stronge r in Christian wrlting "-no tabty in the- Fourth GospeL Karl A . Kuhn asserts thou bot h t he Ba ptist a nd .Jesus a re presented as exalted lig ures. since Luke "is clear ly not inte rested in g lorifying J esus ::lt John's expcnse."'d The p r incip:tl purpose o f the ste p p a r;tllclism is chri.stolo-g ical..;.1 Part o f the m css,.gc of the ste p p an llclism, and especially suc h Luka n inci· dents a.s the Visitatio n , is that the re is no tr~lce o f r i,·atrr but on I)' par tn e rship between t he h\'O figures. A furthe r n oLable d iffe r e n ce in t he presen tation is thatj ohn the Baptist is in t roduced a.s p reparin g t he \v-ay. not fo r ''J esus.. (as in Mark 1:2- 3 a nd Matt 3:3) but rathe r fo r "the LORD" ( Luke 1: 17. 76). Fo r Luke the coming o f J esus i.s 1 h is coming o f th e LORD: J esus is described by adjec· tin !S that not o nlr con t rast with J ohn-who will be ··great befo re t he Lo rd" a nd ~fi lied with the holy Spirit"' (1:I 5)- b ut thal apply in J e wish tradition o n ly to God. such as the a bsolute u .sc of "g r cat .. ( 1:32) a nd "holr" ( 1:35). This reflects

IIi

Bovon, Cununmlt/1)., .56-57.

;o st

Ibid .. 68. Ibid .. 97. Brown { Jiil-111. 457) me ntioned outr the mc:-ssc:ngt•r speech in Aeschylus' plar ~l;.fl7»1o'J,IJJ 10ft

(1-30}.

BrO\o;n. 11Mir. 250- 52. The following quotation is from p. 284. ~ Karl A. Kuhn. "The: Poinl of the Stc:p·l'arallc:lism in Luke 1-2.~ :\·n u Ti'.drl•,.~•~t Studil"$ 17 ~

s.~

(2001) :SS-49. here 42. An interesti ngsidclight isc~st bySte\'t' n Ha rmon's arHdc:. ~zecha ri ah ·s Unbdic:raud Eariy j ewi.sh·Chr istian Relations. ' !Sib/ira/ T h"nltlj(J R11IMin :H (200 1) 10-Hi. Ht• sees Zechariah s mm·e from disbelief to belief (admi1'3hly presented i n a neat l.uhn fii\cc:n·stet>chiastk structure:. a t}')>ic:tl exa mple or l.ukc 's lite-ran· patte-rning) as being intt·nded as ~' modc:J ror a similar mo\-e o n the pan or God·fea rc:r.s.

l ufnuq

Stt~rii"J

si·na R aymon d

1~.

Brown

17

what La rry Hunado d escribes 3$ t he ~ea rl y Chri.sl ian mutatio n" o f ancient Jewish mo notheism a nd t he divine age nl tradition, seen in th e merg ing o f de\'otio n to God with d e\'otio n to Christ."" Similar!)'. J ohn J. Kilg atlen p oints o ul t hat in 1he annunciatio n lo Mary 1he message that "he will rule fo r ever and his reign will have no en d " ( I :33) go es berond the no rmal bo unds of e xpectation of the M<.•ssia h ..>t> The promise that "the p ower of the Mo sl High will CO\'c r rou wilh i1s .shadow.. ( 1:35) is ta n ta· mo unt to saying t h at the sacred sh~J.•iuah (the glorio us d i\'ine pres-ence) will d esu nd u po n Mar y. a nd according to a ncie nt male·oriented e mbryolog y. ~cod is g i\·en a ro le by which he defines the r eality to be called .Jesus."' A fascimning sugg estion o f a source-or at least a connectio n-fo r the words of th e angel to Mary is put fOrw;trd ht· George Brooke from h is ex te n· sivc kno wledge o f the Qumran Scro lls:;; An Aramaic fragment from I he first centur}' BCE (4Q246) h;is dose parallels to Luke ) :3 Z-35. It p resenLs a n inter· p reter (p erhaps Da n iel) explaining :t \'ision of the king o f Egy pt, t he k ing o f Assrr ia. an d a third k ing who will b e:: -c:tlled great"' an d .. ,,,iJI b e called t he Son o f Go d a nd the So n o f the Mo.•a Hig h .. in a time of g reat turmo il. follo wed by an e ternal king do m of great peace. Arc Luke and 4 QZ4 6 dependent o n the same source? Broo ke declares, "Whe n t he same fo ur ite ms occur in a fC w lines in one tcxl and in as manr verses in a no ther. some kind o f cxp lana lion is ca lled fOr.""" In fact. J ames Dunn plausibly mainta in s thai t h is text uses a ll 1hcse titles co r p orately o f th e people r ather I h an of an indi,ridual."!l Mo r eover. the re is n o t ransfer o f po wer from the One o f Great Ag e to the So n o f Man. This lean·s Luke's u sage as still an ad\'ancc o n th e Qumran ICXI. Brooke also re fers to the much·discus,.;cd IQSa 2.11- 12. p art of a Qumran text known as th e /iu/r of J}u Crmgn•gt~6on.""' The phmsc in the Qumran tex t. *when God en gender,; (or brings to b irth] the Messiah." d ocs seem Lo sug hrest d i,·in e p:lrc n tage. o r at least a dose link to 2 Sam 7:14. The Hebrew ''CI'b seems 10 h;we b een fin ally establish ed as yOlld. wh ich n o n nally means "enhrender." usc.-d o nly of p aren tage. This wo uld s uggest properly di\'inc paren tage. Gtn it be u sed p<)e tically in a weaker sense w mean ~c a use to be bo rn''"? Brooke does not sug gcsl what the exact relatio nship between the Qumnm texts and Luke may be. s imp l)' ending with the e n igmatic ob.sc r\'ation. "Thus the manuscrip ts

» On Ihe resulta m dr.mtional ~bi nit~uiauism ," $C'C La rr}' Hurtado. Om · Lard, Om · Gnd: J~rl)' ClwiJ/hm /).:volirm and ,hu·;~lltJalli.•·/J M <mtJIJ:ti.•·m ( l'hiladdl)hia: Forlr~S.'i, 1988) . 9J-12-I. "*' John J. Kilg
;..: Ibid .. 26. w jamt·s n. G. Dunn . .. ·son of God' a nd 'Son of ~l a n· in the Dead Sa Scrolls." i n T it,. Sr-mlh m •d til<' SrriplttTI':I. ed . Stanley E..J'ortc r and Craig A. [\·a m (JSP Supplt"mc:lll 26: ShdTield: Sheffrc.ld Academic Press. 1997). 198- 2 10. r~•

Brooke. ~Qumra n,"29 -:JO.

J.Jnn y Uh nsbrougl1, O.S. /3.

18

fro m Q u m ran provid e" u.s with sen:: r aJ o f t he: planks th at make u p Lhc c n1dle o f C h rist. But much o f its o verall .structure a nd th e bahr it c r adles a rc stricti)' spea k ing f ro m anothe r carpc:n tcr 's shop a ltogethe r."'" I f. as Kilg allc n su ggests. it is the ro le of God to d efi n e th e rcality t.o be c:;tllcd J esus. we m a y pc l"h aps h e r e insert m cm ion o f a scint illating liu le essa y in the sam e collectio n by th e e m in e n t scie n tis t a nd t heolog ia n Arth ur Peacoc ke . e nti· tied ~ o~A o f o u r DNA.»6'l He fi rst esta blishes by q uotatio ns f rom the the n· Card in al J o seph Ratzingc r and Ra}'tno nd Brown that a h u num f::ath e r wo u ld not b e consid e r ed in Roman Catholic d oct ri n al te rms to exd udc a bsolutely 1he poss ibilitr o f j esus' d ivin ity.'!J csu.s co uld han :: been d i" in e eve n if h ypo thcti· call)' h e h ad h ad a h u m an f;H h e r. In co n sc::quc nce, Peaco c ke po.o;cs Lhc problem th at without human paternity eith e r .Jesu s would lack the \'-c h rom osom es n ecessary fo r m;tle n css (pa rthe no ge nesis in in sects a lways produces a fC m;tle. wit h XX-c h ro m o so m es) o r Go d '"o u ld h a ve to compe n sate br d irectly .supplying the \'-chrom osom es. Wou ld t he l
R

Ibid .• J3.

re Arthur J>t"-acocke. ··o NA of our DNA... in Tit.. Hi11h l~Jjenu. « 1. Brooke, 59- 6i. M JMcJ>h Ral:tingcr. /11fmd urtifm It~ Chri.•·titmily (New York: He rde r & Herd er. l96tJ). 208; Raymond E. Brown. 11u: tr;,l;,ilf Conuptitm t.md !Sodily Rr.um-..cliQn ufJenu (New York: P:mlist. l9i 3). 42. ~ Brov;n. HM II, 481. r.:. Coleridge, B ii1Jt, 22- 23. ro. Brown. BMh. 252. T he next quotation is from h ~ earlier work. An .ttdctiJ Clwbt r~t Cllri.•fmtl~ (Colleg<'"\·ille: Lih1rgkal l're$s. 1977). JS. 1.; 11te .solution of Bm·on (C.um»•n1ftll)". 29) is that lhe incidelll {after the t\•"0 biMhs) pairs \\ith the Visitation (al\e r the two an nunciations). In content. ho\,.<'\ '-cr. these form an a\,·k· ward pair.

l ufnuq Stt~rii"J si·n a Raymond 1~. Brown

19

Sk ilfu lly u.sing 1he tc:ch niques of narrati\'C crit icism. Colcr id geshO\V'S h ow this incident i!i n o mere ca m eo-a p pearan ce ofJ esus as a youth, a b ridge between ch ildhood :ln d the adult state. I nstead of cxpl<mations and intc rprc.•tation.s given by angelic intervention. as in e:u licr c pisod e.s. J esus. sp eak ing for the first tim e in l .uke. h imself m oves to cente r-stage and re\•e als h imself as Son o f God -as the a ngel had a lready idemillcd h im in 1:32.3:1. He is h is own in l«rpr etcr. n o t o nly con firm ing the earlier a n gelic m essage b ut intrO
Feminist Issues An issue that has ce rta in ly d e,•d oped considerab lr sin ce Brown 's /Jirlh t~J J}u ,1\1f!s.finlr is that o f fi:mi n ist inle rpretations of the b iblical d ata o n the birth o f j C"sus. espcciallr in the M::anhea n accoun t. The virgin birth (or more precisely. virginal conception) is ~\ n ot h er of the ver r few fac ts sh ared by b oth e vangelists. Of those who d ispu te it. a lmost all (;o;omc C"Xcep tio n s will be mcm io n cd latc:r) reckon that it was not itwcnled by Mallhcw o r Luke. b ut thal the 1\VO C\'angelist.s belie ved it. and sci about glYing it a n explanation. O ne of the ftrst significant modern publiations on this issu e w:.ts Jan e Schaberg's Tlu~ llll'gilimm:y ofJ~us.'" John Meier Look issue " 'ilh this in the fi rst volume o f A MMginalJew, in such a way th:c1t it wa.s some time bdOre she" could bring h e rself to read his b oo k '''ithoutswcating. Her re buual o f Brown•s ~m isrep­ re.o;cntation" of her position is lcs.o; ,·iole nt: princip ally protesting that .she d id not ho ld thal Mary was rapC"d , b u t left it an open q uestion -whethe r the prtig nancy of Ma ry wao; the ro;u lt of the scch tction o r rape of Mary or the result of h e r free ch oice to h ave sex '''ith som eone o the r • lmn J oscph ...71 In any ca.se !.here ' ' '
Ul BO\'Oil. Conu,.mltny. ()3 . ~'~~ Anw lm Gr(m. .f<'JI.u: Tlu· luH'J."' tifNruMnity (New York: Continuum. 2003). 33. m J:tnc Schaberg . ·nu lll~J.:ili»wJ ~JJmu (San Francisco: Ha rper & Row. 1987). For :t crit ical

• re-sponse. sec: John 1'. Mt'"icr, A MnrginniJn.•. 1>t>/. I (New York: Doublcdar. 1991). 22'2, 246. 1 ' J:-mc Schaberg. ~reminil1l Interpreta tions or the Infa ncy Narrati\~ of r-.·latthe"··" in :\ l·i- 26. hnc 24. For Hrown' $ posit ion, St'C: /Urt.lt. oor, 635-:~7. 707- 708.

J.Jnny Uhnsbrougl•, O.S. /3. Schaberg docs. h owc ver.sugge.o;lthatit was mo re probable Lh:tl Ma ry wao; raped. a nd that God. wsiding with th e wro nged woman." m ad e her son his mv-n . This would account fo r her ··frig h tened has te" ( Luke 1:39) in t he Vi~itation sto ry, a nd the me ntion of·humili:uio n,. (Luke ) :48) in the Magnificat. The concep tion by the Holy Spirit was neve r me:mt 10 imply that there was no h uma n father. fo r Paul equallplatcs I h at Isaac \\'. •~ Roger )}a\'id A us. Mrmhn~ 1- 2 mtd u,.. Virgirtt~l Cmu.,.pticm (Lanham. \\•10: Uniw:l'sil}' l'rc.ss of America. 2004). ~ The unri\'allcd authorit)' of l,ierr~·Ma urice Boga.::rl lends weight to the increasing ten· dc:ncr to dale I his wmk before 70 C E: .st"e his artid e. ~tuc ct l e~ Ec ritures dan s I'E,·angile de I'Cnra nc:e 3 Ia lumiCrt dt•s "Antiquitfs bibliqtR-s.'" in "17•1! Scrlptwr$ in til, c~s.pm. cd. Christoplwr M. Tuckett (BETl. 131: l...eu,·en : Peeters. 1997). 243-70. here 244.

+?

~

l ufnuq Stt~rii"J si·n a Raymond 1~. Brown

21

J ud aic haggadah."'' Th is is strong la n guage! The quesLio n is '''helher so many of th e details in Matthew's account ~~re d erived from the J ewish trad ition earlier th a n Mallhew. o r whether Mallhew simply rcl
" A us, Mf.'IJI!m••. SO:and s
642- 4:t !(I

Irene Nowell. 1esus' Great·Grand mothen: Malthew's Four and Quttrl....r,·70 (2008} 1- 15. ht•re 15.

~l ore." CtltMik Rihliml

A-mr:Jil( l.t"\'ille. ~Matthe\\·,'" in T ill' n't,JWm:v wu.. f :.tnnm.nrtf.'lry. «!. Carol A. Newsom and Sharon H. Ringe (l.ouis\'illc: Westmimtc-r John Knox. 1992), 2;}2- 62. here 253. ~ Wim J C. Wercn. "Tht" Fivt" Women in Matthew's Genealogy." CatluJJk 8ibliNII Q•un1tr~r 59 {1997) 288- 30!1. here 301. ~ Worth recording is a furtlwr suJnJnlion fmm J.:dwin D. Freo::d, Tltt SJQrkr t~fJ r::u u · ttil1h: :~ Critirol fn trM•uticm (Shdflcld: Sheffie-ld Academic Press, 2001). He u.se-s conttmporarr .ft\\'ish rources and l eh~nds to .show that it w:.u considered that God or the Spirit made a special inten1:ntion in the li\'cs of all four of the womt"n in tht" gcncalogr. This is the factor they share with Mary. He also regar ds this as a dt•fense of Mary :t~;ai nstjewish accusations of immoralit}' (p. 46). Uro;,·n concluded his witt)' a nd sparkling discussion (BiTt/! . 595-96) by poi ruing out that in the case of three of the na med women the man h:ts been at f:mlt in some war r t he UII\\'Orthit"S named in the genealogy'"). This docs not... hO\\'(':\'Cr. apply to Ruth, so will not do a.s tht" common factor that the Old Teslament wonu•n of the gc-nc-alogr share with Maq '. Nodc1 { Ni.IUJI'Intl . liS} simplifies the situation by ~~l)'i ng that all the: wo men are ,?Utside the Law. a nd they · rt"dircct and reshape the posterit}' of Ahr.aham and ofO~wid.

14

22

J.Jnny Uhnsbrougl1, O.S. /3.

In contrast l.o t he usual male conlt'nl ion th at Luke is favorable: to womc:n. Schaberg is emphatic a bout Luke's negal i,·ity tow;m:l womc:n in most of Ih e Gospel. complaining that h e makes the chief function of women to be nurtur· ing.1u On I)' in the infanq sto ry arc they more powerful. [Iizabeth rnakes Ihe on lr christological confCss ion br a wom;m in 1his gospel, calling J esus *Lord" ( Luke 1:43). Mar}' is .. I h e only woman to whom Luke h a.s g in!n a full sp eech of proclam ation. the Magnificat," in which he r pro cltlm::ation i.s -precious to ,,·ome n and olhcr o ppressed p eople for its vision o f their concrete freedom fro m .sp1cm ic it'tiu.sl ice."

Conclusion \<\'hilc BrO\\'"n addressed most of 1h e pertinent issues to a grcate1· or lesser cxl.c nl. more recent studies h:we considered qu<"stion.s (hoi h broader and more specific) within Matthew 1-2 and Luke 1-2. The re is :01 developing <1p prccia1ion of Ihe lite rary .skill o f Matthew and Luke, while use of t he narratives to e.o;tab· Iish historici1y has d im in ished in scholarly discussion. Various new a pproaches h ave been taken furth<"l. (especia lly literary and fc:m ini.st studies). but. n o n ew parad igm lla.s )'Ct tola lly superseded the work of Raym ond Brown.11"

J:tne Schaberg. '"l.uke.~ in 11u 1\>lm•m :. W61<' c:ar.s a1 the end ofthi.s \Uiume.

1',1

Chapter 2

Luke's Nativity Story: A Narrative Reading Ian Boxall

Luke's vivid porlra)•al of the n ati, •it)' o f.Je.sus p rovides a rich Lapcstr)' o f setting. action . and characte r ization that h a.s fed th<: Ch ristia n imagination down the ccnluri<"s. The dramatjc a ppeal of the worldwide census und er the Empe ror Augustus: the moving sight o f a baby Irin g in a manger: the rus tic appeal o f a ban d of shepherd.;. interwoven with hcavcnlr inte rvention through a c hoir of angels: all this has g i n~n Luke's b irth .story pride of place in t he popular m e m o ry. Though the magi mar have plarcd a more significa nt ro le in ~utis­ tic rcprcst":ntations of the n ativity up to the La te Middle Ages. it is Luke's sh e phe rds who have t.akc n center stage in \ ¥estern art fr01n the Renaissance onward. Furlhcm10re. no doubt aided by St Francis' crib or crC:che at Greccio. the Christ ch ild in a manger remains :nlhe h eart ofCh rislnms d evotion and piety. Here as elsewhere in h is Gospel. through his .skillfu l usc of words a nd his cap acity to create pO\verful images. Luke reveals h imself to b e I he consum· m ale literary a rtist. The evangelist M:nlhcw. by contrast. d evo tes no more than h :-tlf ;t ,·erse to the event of the bir th ( • Jn Lhc time of King He rod. a flc r J esus was bom in lkthlchc:m o f.Judc;t..- Mall 2:1a), before moving on to h is talc of the magi.

Picturing the Nativity IL is perhaps no wond er. thcrC"fore. that among thC" traditions about St Lu ke arc those that ,·icw h itn as a n :lrtist, and 1he pat ron s:\inL o f artisLo;. Already in 1h e fourth century. th e chu rch h istorian Euscbius describes L.ukc as having left us example..; of ~the art of c u ring sou ls" (Euscbius 1-/i!;t. et:d. 3.4). 1\y at least 1he sixth century. a pp reciation of t h is a rtistq• h ad developed into a tradition that saw Luke as lite r:•llr an a rlisl. the p ainter of icons o f O u r Lady.1 Numerous examples su rvive claiming to be Luke's h :md ih•ork, from t he portrait of the

1

On Luke as a rtist, ~cc HeidiJ. Hornik and Mik<'
Nmndif.v ;,. ltr1Hm, RNuri.•s<mu Pt1i11tirtg ( H arri~bnrg:

24

ftm /Joxall

Virgin in Rome's Basilica o f Santa Maria M agg i or~ to an icon h oused in the little Srr ian Orthod ox chu rch ofSt Mark in.Jerusalcln. Insp ired by Lhi$ t rad ition. p ainters throughout the ages h ave often p laced thc mse h •cs in the position o f Luke. Sc\'cral artist-: h a\'c d e p icted the- sce ne of Luke paintin g Mary. oflCr ing a .self-portrait in th eir d epiction o f the cv~mge­ lisL Rogicr van d er Wcyd en (St Lukt> Drawing the v,~rgi·n and Child. ca. 1435) and Gio rg io Vas:tri (St Luhtf Paiuting thl' Vi·1giu. ca. 1565) a rc good e xamples. Blll it i.s th e ''i\•id scen es of Luke•s Go..oopcl- notably from h is infa ncy nur ati,·e-th:t l h a\'e been especially inspiratio na l fo r ar1is1s, who have been among Lu ke 's m ost i ll umin~ni ng inte rpreters. ILis the conten tion of th is essay that interest· ing p amllels can be drawn b eLween this visual conunctllaq• o n Luke by the a rtists and t he kind of n::adings o ffC red by recent Iitc ra ry a ppro:tches to the gospe ls. He nce it will attcmpl!o ske tc h out some co lllours o f a ho list ic re
Ibid .. 92-121. Ibid., l 10.

25

Trends in Lukan Scholarship Tre nd s in gospel stud }' o ve r recent d ecades h:lvc e ncouraged c ritica l b ib lical scholars to re visit lhe a n cient tradition of Lu ke t he ~ut ist. as well as opening up fresh possibilities for re reading Luke's m arralin : with t he C}l':S of o ur artistic p red ecessors. The shift in historical- c:rit ical ;tp p ro;tchc.s (f rom .sou rce- a nd form- to redaction- and compositio n-criticism) in Lhc secon d half of the twcnLieLh cemury l:tid the foun dations f()r :t greater apprcciat io n of Luke's sk ill as a write r and c reative ad apter of his traditions. T it les suc h as H ow(lrd Ma rsh all 's /.ukt~: J./istoritm and T/uv.Jogitm (1970) a nd Eric Fr.tnklin 's ChriJI the Lord: A Study itl lil t! Purpo.st' and 11uology of Luke-Arts ( 1975) highlight this regard for t h~ e van· gdist 's disti net ive n1cssagc. 4 lron ic:.;tll)'. th e dassic wo rk of redactio n c r iticism on Luke's Gospel. Ha n s Con7..clmann's Ditr Miutrder Zeit (I r an sl:tted into English as The TJut~log)· ofSt. Lukt [ 1960]). d isn::g ;uded 1he infa n cy narratives in its account of Luke"s 1heology.5 For Com:elmann. Luke's firs L two c:hap lcrs. in clud ing !h e nat ivity slory. ;m:: lacking in d isti nctiv~ Lukan features a nd therefo re irrelevou lt to Lu ke's pur· pose: ~The introductory chaplcrs of the Gospd present a special problem. It is strange t h at t he c h a racu.,ristic fCaiU res they contain do not occu r again either in the Gospel o r in Acts."" Among these ''characLcrislj c featu res.'" Com:d mann note.o; the ~m a l og}' bett,•ecn.John the Baptist and .Jesus, the special role played by Maq• a nd the virginal co n ception, J esus• descent f rom David a nd the p lace of Bethlehem. Yet a wide r p en>pecth·c m ight suggest Lhal som e of these fea· I urcs a rc not quite ;ts d istin ctly -ch ar acter istic"' of o nly the first l\\'0 c h olpters as Conzclmann su ggests . A particular example is t he special ro le played br l\'lary. Her role among Lhc cle,·e n . th e hro thcn>. a n d th e other wome n in Acts 1:14 is problem:uic fo r Com.clma nn's case. This he d ismis.o;es in a fo o tnote: - It is d if· fic u lt to avo id the susp icion th at AcLo; i. 14 i.s a n interpo lation."' Ne\erlhclcss. Lhe m ajority of r~d action - c r i tic:;t l commentators h ave p lowed a rat he r diffe re n t furm w wit h respect to Luke I and 2.11 [ric Fmnklin comments o n the fun ct ion o f Luke's firsl 1\''0 chapte rs: "They serve. n o l as the first chap· lc r of an unfo ld ing n arrative extend in g to the end o f Acts. b ut as the prologue Lo the two \'Oiumes. They are the statement which t he wo rk as a whole expl<1ins

1

~

' ; t

I. Howard M:arshall. l.11kt: Ni.d
26

ftm /Joxall

and justifies . . .'*9 For Fra nklin. the n . the infancy n arrative is integral to u nde rstanding Lu ke's ovcr a rching pu rp ose, in troducing them es that will he p layed o ut a nd developed fu1·the r in the rema in d e r o f Lukc-AcLs. More- recently, n arrati\•e -critical and o th e r litc r.tt')' a pproaches h:we soug h t to n·ad Lu ke's book (or in m ost cases. what is belie ved to he h is two-volume work of Luke an d Acts) in a lhorough l}' h olistic way. A pioneer h e re h as b een Ro b e rt T:mnchill'.s TJu iVtUTtllilltt UtliiJ of l.•~kt'-AcJ.sY> Taking a wid er p erspt:clin!, Tan n chill o ffe rs a reading in which the infancy n arratives p lar a fa r more integra l role in th e unified narrative of Luke-Acts than Conzelmann allowed. A sim ila r approach has been ad o pted in lllis ess:ty, o n t he presupposit ion that a n an·ative reading can be ex pected to show p a rtic ular apprecia tio n of the literar)' artist ry o f Luke's n:trrat ive, akin . if not id e ntical. to that of artists such as Ghirla n d aio .

Luke's Birth Story as Narrative As we tu rn to Luke's b irth story ( Luke 2:1-20). it is worth remin ding oursch·es of so m e of th e features of a n arrativc-uitical approach .11 Su ch a readin g will attend to the fi n al form of the story, rather than any h)•pot hcl ical sou rces underlying il o r .supposed moli\'es be h ind its com position . This fi n al for m will p resum e a p:trticul a r ~spnbolic world ." which 1h e read er is i1wited 10 e nte r into. e1nhracing- at least temporaritr - its assumptions a nd being m oved by iL~ perspective. A n ;tr rati,·e reading will app roach the p assage holist ica lly- both in te rms of its inte rnal sLruciUre a nd as a n integral p art of a larger n arrative (in th is case Luke-Acts).'? Thus it will be c.spcc::ially attentive 10 literary p arallels con n ectin g o n e p as.o;agc with ol he rs elsewhe re in th e text. It will be less inte rested ill the real historical author (wltosc ldemity m:ty be lost to us) than in tlte ~ i mpl ie d author." !hat is. t he pictu re g leaned fro m I he tcx l as to the k in d o f a uthor implied . Sim ilar ly, allc n tion will be on t he "implied r eader." somelimc.s called the "id eal reader"'- 1he kind o f read er who will always respon d to the text in the wa}· it sugge.sls a n atten tive reader should. A n ;tr rati,·e a p p roach ,,.jJI h a\'e a n a rtist's eye for what \\'e mig h t call "narrati\'C lhreads," such as repcti· tio n of phrases ;md recu rrence o r d eYelo pmc n t of th e m es. It will be inlcreslcd • Franklin. /.11kto.: lt>t.-rp,..wrojl'mtl, 357. Robe-rt C. Tannehill, 11u: .ll.'tmu/il"lt' Unity qj l.ukto·Ad.•: ! l /.ittormJ IJJirrpr.-Miiml (2 m ls: Philadelphia: Fortress. 1986. 1990). 11 For a brief sun·t':r of narrati,·e cril icism and olher Jiunry readings. see I an Boxall. SCM Studyg11idt' 1a Nn" 'ft..tamnal Jut<'rf11'1'll'llirm ( Lo ndon: SCM. 2007). 112- 2:>. For a more detailed intrOduction. sec Ma rk Allan Powell, What U ,'1/r:rmliv r CritidJmt (Minneapolis: FortreM, 1990: l.ondon: SJ>C K. 1993). I? 11mugh some rec:t'nt scholan h an~ proposed a ·loosening or the hyph.::u ~ linking Luke: an d Acts . .so :u to treat thr m as separate tl"xU. I '"'ill prt'su me a unity or author and pur· pose bt'h•'<-'<'n them.

It

27 in the c h aracters within t he n arrative , 1he ir capacity Lo e voke spnpat hy. c mpa· thy. o r antip
Establishing the Final Form of the Story Among Ihe interests o f h istorical critics h :wc been Ih e question o r Lu ke 's sources tOr the infancy n arrative, a nd the e vangelist's mol ives in writing as he docs. Narrati\'e critic..;, h owe ver. .stud )' th e n a rrative as it h as come dm,•n lo u.s. For Lhe m , q uestion s of the p rehistor y of Ihe tcxl as we h ave it. arc irrelevant. Decisions s1 ill n eed lo be made abo u t \\'hat is 1he *fina l form." owing to vari;uu read ings in 1he a ncien I Gn~c k m:musc ripts, b ut fortunately. there arc fe w o f these in l .u ke 's birth narrative. T h e most significa n t variants a rc in relation to the angelic m essage to the sh e phe rds. In Lu ke 2: I I. although the \'ast majorit)' of manuscripts read ~c hrist the Lord .. (I he prefe rred reading in Eng lish translatio n s). there a re several a ltc rnaliYe r eadings: .. the Lo rd C hrist." •th e Lord's Ch rist," .. Ch rist J esus." -Ch ristJ e.sus tJlc Lo rd." .. Ch r i.s1 a SaYio r,.. a nd simp!)' ..C h rist." These n arianu h nrd ly m a ke a great difiCrcnce to the overall meaning. A more significant variant is found in l.uke 2:14: d o Ihe heaven ly ho.st pro· claim ~peace and favo r/ good will" (Greek ~udokin) 10 all h umans? The King J a m es Versio n op1s fOr Lhis read in g: .. Glory to God in the h ighest. and on canh

28

ftm /Joxall

peace. g oo d will to ward men."' Or should we opt fo r the mo r~ lim ited reading: ·peace to humans ojf:wor/ good w ill.. (Greek r.Utlokia.s)? If w e accept this .second reading, the n a furth e r imnpretatin: d ifficu lty r;tis.es its head . Whose favor o r go o-dwill is being spoke n of? Is it a refere n ce to a human altitude. offe ring hcan :-nly peace to t hose mind ed 10 receive it? The Do uai Bible, follo wing the Vu lg ate's lxmae volunJntis. tra ns lates litcrallr: ~cror)' to Go d in the h ighest: and o n earth pe;•ce to m e n of g oo d ,,,iJI." An altc rnati\'C intcrprc ta ljo n of eudo· killS has God as the source of this. ~good f:n·or." m eaning that peace ,,,.j )l be received by tho se on whom h c- chooses to bestow il. Th is is th e inlcrprctatjo n follo wed by I h e Ne w J c_•rusalcm Bib le : ··Glory to Go d in the h ig h e.o;t h c;wen. a nd on earth peace fO r those he fa vors." In a holistic read ing, a n y so lution must attend Lo Lu ke 's two othe r u ses of the trudtJk- wo rd-complex ( Luke 3:22: 10:2 1). Both poin t to *good favor.. being God 's, a nd thus suggest th e second reading t'udok;tu as t he orig inal." The a ng elic c h o ir th us sings o f peace for those who follo w th e patte rn of.Je.sus, the b eloved Son wit h who m t he Fathe r is well p leased (t' lld.()ki.w. 3:22). If we follo w this r eading . the n those wo rking in English r.uhc r than Gn~e k will find both th e NRSV and the New.Je rusalem Bible relia ble g uides fo r t he fi n al fon n of the birth sto r y. As it stands. the n , the n ativity sto r y fa lls fairly n catl}' into three sectio ns. eac h of wh ich has
2:1 -7: The ln··,·fb l{]esu.s. set against the b ackd rop o f AugtL'ilus' cens us ( Mary ;md J oseph a rc the key p layers):

2:8- 14: The lmgt:lir. a nu unr.iatiou to the sh eph e rds (the angel of the Lo rd a nd the h e;wc n ly ho.o;t are acti\'c, while the sh eph e rds arc p assive o bserve rs);

2:15 -20: The conft rmato r)' v;.sit of tlur .1heph ~rrd.s to 1\ethlc hc m. and t heir rctum {t heshephe nis n o w take o n I h e active r o le. though matc h ed by Mary in ve rse 19). We shall return to .som e of these ch:nactc rs ;u a l
Luke's Symbolic World Unde r lying this three-part story is a p art ic u lar "'symbolic wo rld " (or "nar rative world") I ha l the read e r must recon struct fro m the ntrio us s ig nals provided . The te rm "symbolic wo r ld" d escr ibes t he system of sh ared m ean ings. as-sump Lions. and \'Ollu cs held in commo n by ;l p a rticular g ro up through whic h that g roup is able to m ake se nse o f t he world t hC)' in h a bit. Luke T im o thy J o hnson " ·\oscph A. Fitlnl\'r.r. Tlu Gt~orpd tu:tuTlli•1glo /.111u: f.! X (Anchor Uible 28: New York: Doubleday. 980).410- 12.

29 puts it thus: ~A symbolic world is not an altermllivc id eal world re moved from t:\-eryday lifC:. To Lhc contrary, it is Lhe .srstem of meanings that a nchon; Ih e activities o r in divic:hmls and communities in the real world. Kothing is more down to carlh and ord inary than a spnbol ic world ." 1·1 Narrati\'e criticism presumes that the ideal reader will enter into the .sym· bolic world prcsupposc..-d by !he te xt. This might invoi\'C temporarily suspending one's O\\'"njudgmcnts as to what the \\'Orld is really like. Thus :t ~ h erm en eu ti c of gen erosity,. is called fO r. open (though not uncritically so) to the p c rspectin ! e nvisaged by the te xt. rathe r than a - h e rme n eut ic of .susp icion"' targeting unacknowle dge d assumptions and moli\'es e mbedded in the text."' Even this is not a str;tightforward move. however. Robe rt Tanne hill rt"minds u s that reconstructing a symbolic or n:•rrative world from th e text involves a certain dement. of imaginati\'e ~ free play,"' working as it docs with suggested as well as explic it c:onncctions.11i The inte rpreter p lays a ker ro le in d eciding which details should take priority in n :con.st ructing a S}'mbolic. world. and how they should be linked. N<:n:rthclc.ss. what is oflCred here is a te nia lin : sketch of the srmbolic world pa inted by Luke 's story. giving priority to narrative signals in t he:": birth n a rrative that .seem to be ~ roregroundcd " by the ir prom inent pl
Luke T imothy Johnson. Til" 1Vri/J~tlg.- of a, Nm• ·r;..,tmm-'JJt; A" '"'"rJmlatitm (rev. cdn; Philadelphia: Fonrcss, 1986), l2. 1~ Some miJ,tht see it as a ,\·eaknrs.1 or narratin · criticism that it can l'aillo l' llgroblcmatic and C\'eU morally objectionable elements that m:-ay <'Xisl ill the perspeCtive of the text. " 1~ nuehill. Nttrrttth..- u,;t1. 1.~. 11 On th e-~ historical quc$tions. sec Raymond E. Brown, T/1.: Hirth tifJ/u ;lkuiall (rt'\'. edn: Ncb· York: Doubleday. 1993). 412-18, Mi- !'>6. 666- 68. 11

30

ftm /Joxall

anoin tc:d k ing (the royal Messiah. Lu ke 2 :1 1). Mo reove r, imp1icil in t..he.o;c m essianic cxpect.."'l lio n s is Lhc conviction that u ltim ate po wer rests n ot with Augu.s1us but with Jsrad•s God. who c reated the world. promised p ro tection to his p eople. <m d whose agent the- David ic ~-fe.ssiah wou ld be.18 But Luke's symbo lic u n ivcn;e is e ve n more expa ns ive. Fo r Lu ke 's earthly world of e mpe rors. governo rs. d fcnt-r ulc:rs, and prie..o;ts is o n e into wh ich heave n rcgu l;u ly breaks. The intervention a n d aCLion of angels p ermeate Lukc-Ac t..s . making it one of the most ··a poc::llyptic.. sections of t he: New Testam e nt. 19 Already by t h is slagc in the n arr ali\'c:, readers of Lu ke h ave encou ntered two angelic visitations, both by the arch a ng el Gabrid. one of the seven a rcha ng els wh o accord ing to J ewish a ngelology ··sl."ln d ready a n d e nte r before the glor}' o f the Lord " (Tob 12 :15; cf. Lu ke 1:19). Now again a n ..a ng el of the Lord" (wh eth er Gabrid or ano ther we are n ot to ld) enters o ur earl h i)' realm to d eliver a divin e m essage. At the same poinl. earth also has a g limpse into hcan~n. as the shep· he rds hear the singing of Ih e h eavenly liturgy. pe rformed by the heave n ly a rmy ( Lu ke 2:13). Angels will continue 10 intervene both in the life o r j esu s {Luke 22:43) a n d in 1he l i n~s o f h is fo llo we rs (Acts 5: 19; 8 :26: 10:30: 12:7-10. 23: 27:23). T h is much ric h e r and deeper srmholic world is o n l}' too real fo r Lu ke. whereas twenlr·fln>H:cntu r y C hrislians may need to red iscover som ething of this a ngelic d epth in order to e n ter into that wo rld more S)'tnp athcticallr. Within this apoc::al}'ptic trad itio n . a ng elic m essages a rc far m o re authorita· ti n~ than a n r imperial dec..ec. He n ce the m essage conveyed by the angel to the sh e phe rds ( Luke 2:10- 12) is thi! a utho r it;uive m essage. to be heard a n d taken to heart by all ideal read ers. At the h eart o r this message is the pro d:nmujon Ih al Ihe re is;, rival c:laim;ull to the impe rial throne. This ch ild o r Dav-i d's line. not Lhc Emperor Augu.stus, is lhC' lr u e S<wio r. whose birth establishes Irue peace (e.g.. Luke 7: 50~ 8 :48: 10:5- 6: 19:38,42: 24:3 6; b ut sec 12 :5 )). So Lu ke's ~•y mbol i c world is both expa n sive a nd po lilic:allr subversive.

Narrative Pa rallels to t he Nativity Yet Luke's sto ry o r !he b ir th, the shepherds. ~m d 1he angelic pmdam ation does not st:m d alon e. Schola rs have o ru:n nolcd literary parallels to this story else· where in his Go..,pel. A ~;'Ood place to stan is wilhin lhe in ra n cy na n·;H in~s thc mseJvcs. sin ce they fO n n a rccogni;-.ahle b lock wiLhin the Gospel fO r their 1

hr

~ Darrell Bock makes a good ca~e lOr Luke bting inllur nced O ld Testament tradiliom aboul the D:widic king in h i ~ porlrayal ofJt-·s.us in the infa ncy narrati,·e: Darrell 1.. Hod. Prflrltmrlllitm _fnmr Prup/,rry tmd {tmrm: l.14ktnr Old To lm•rrll Cl.rhltdlJJt;t USNT Supplement

tt

12: Shdfi dcf: JSOT Press. 1987). 55- 90. O n b1ke's \'icw of the l);witlic dynasty. see al.so Leonard Malur's ess~lr in Lhe prt-.,elll \t>lume. By ~apocalyptic" I meanlha1 strand of (e\\·ish religion that dainu hea\'C'nlr sccrrts can be rC\·ealrd direcll~· lo humans. whl"lher 6ydream. hea\'entr ascent. or angelic ,·isitation.

31 the matic unitr and their im itatio n o f Scphtagintal Greek style. The story o f the b ir th and the she pherds fo r ms the first part of '''hat C h arles Talbert calls Episod e Two in Luke•s in fancy nar r.tli,·e ( Luke 1:57-2:52).'l" The re a rc su ffi. cient n arnlti\'C ech oes o f Episod e One (Luke 1:5- 38) to con clude th at literary patterning is ;u work across these two ch a p lc rs. Commentators a u c nli\'e to the lite r ary structure o f the Lukan infan cy narra· tiYe..o; h a\'C often no1ed 1he narratl\-e patterning of 1he story ofJ o hn and j C":su.s. Luke 1he a rtist isskillfully at work. c reating a s.cric.s of litcrarydipt)'Ch .s in which panels po rtraying the Baptist and h i:o: greate r cousin .stand .side by side. He re. Luke's account of the b irth and naming o f.Jesus (Luke 2: 1-2 1) directly par:dlds his .story of the b irth a nd n ;uning o f John. thoug h not pe rhaps with the p recision that m arks the two annunciat ions Lo Zech ariah and Mary.?l With in 1he wider d ip t}'Ch o f Luke 1- 2. the fo llowing para lids may be detected: Annunciation to Zechari-ah (J::'J- 25) Annunciation to M:uy ( 1:26 - 38) Zechariah's canticle ( 1:67-79) Ma ry's c.:mtide (1 :46-55) Hirth ofjohn (1 :57- 58) Hirth of.Je.sus (2:1- 20) Circ u mc.ision/ n :•ming of Circumcisio n/ naming of.Jesus (2:21) .Joh n ( 1:59-66) John's growth in sp irit ( 1:80) Je.sus' g rowth in wisdom (2:52) Wh;H is highlighted is the dose r-elationship beLween J o hn a nd J esus . Th er~::

a re similarities: bo th .John and Jesus recei\·e the prophetic spirit to proclaim God'sword (e.g., l.ukc 1:15. SO; 3:3; 3:22: 4: 14. 18). Ye t it is a lso d c:tr thaljcsus is the g reate r. the Lord and Son of the Most H igh. whose W-.&.}' J ohn comes to prepare ( Lu ke 1:32, 76: 3:4- 6). But w e should n ot look only to the sto ry ofj ohn's b irth fOr p a r allels to the nat i,·ity o f j esus . Fo r Lu ke's m:tin fo cus in 2:1- 20 i.s nol on th e birth as such b u t on the a ng elic an no uncc m enl t.o the shepherds about t hou b irl h , :•.s well as t he reaction of the she phe rd s to this annou ncement.:! ~ The .scen e in whic h the shcphca-ds e n counte r the a ng el do..,clr parallels !he two appcar.m ces o r the angel Gabriel in c h a pte r I. In fo rmal terms, Luke 2:8 - 14 is Luke's third ann u n ciation story. All th ree sh :tre a similar p atlern. placing the m arginal Jewish she p herds alongside Zechariah the J ewish p r iest ;md Mary the J ewish m other-to-he as recipients o f d ivine rcwlation: • :tn a ppeara nce of a n a ng el o f the Lo rd (Gabriel in Lhe fir.s t t,,·o) • :t command no t to be arra id • the
32

ftm /Joxall

\'d t he re a re also d iffCrc nces a mong t he th r ee accounts. In t he: annunciatio n to the .she phe rds, the typica l .structu re is inte rrupted by t he ;tppcar a ncc of a h ea\·e nly host (2:13-- 14). This underscores the IH:awn ly character o f t h is m css;tge, a n d also anticipates t he ascension a t the e nd or 1he gospel <m d t hC" beginning of Acts. whe re ag::1in the b oundary scpar.lling earth fro m hca\'e n is pie rced ( Luke 24: ~ 1 : Act.s 1: 9 - 1 1 ).1 ~ The reactio n of Ihe sh eph erds is a lso some what d ifferc nl. Un like Zech a riah (who is .struc k dumb as :t result, 1: 18) a nd Maq• (who wish es to understand h ow sh e could possib l)' co ncc in:, 1:34), tile she phe rds ask no q u estio n o f the ange l (~ How can t h is be .. . ?..). Ins tead . they immediate!}' set o ut for BcLh lehe m in the co n vicLio n t h ;tt wh ;u 1h e ;mgd a nnounced h as ind eed com e lo p ass. At t he e nd of I h eir journey, lhq · ftnd · Mary and .Joseph. and lhc- c h ild lying in a manger .. (2:16). Perhap s t he co n· l.rasl with M :tq ' is no t so grc;tt afte r a ll. ho we n :r. Sh e too e m barks o n a jour n e}' as a re.o;u ll of the a n gel's wo rds. at the e nd of whic h sh e also m ceL-: a woman with a ch ild (a lbe it yet unbo rn: Luke 1:39- 56). She m agn ifies the: Lo rd as a result o f that m eeting . ju.sl as the sh eph erds gl01·ify and p raise God ( Luke 1:4 6; 2:20). No r is Luke's narr.Hivc pauerning co n fi n ed to th e in fa n cy s tories. De n is McBride h;ts m ade the p la u sible suggestion Lhat, in gene ral shape. if n ot in e xact o rder o r voca b u1ar}·· the angelic proclamatio n o f C hrist's bir t h in Luke 2:8- 20 p a rallels the a n gelic p r oclamatio n of the resurr ectio n
~Some ~~ !S

manu.saipts ramousty omil the words ~and \,·as carric:d u1> into hea\·cn" at Luke 24:51. Denis Mc Uride. C.Ss.R.. Tit<' (;,.,pd ll{ l.•tkr. :\ & jl«thv Ct>MmMimJ (Dublin: Dominican Public :at ion~. 199)). ~~9. On sh epherd~ as ineligible Lo gl \'e witness in cour t in the Talmud, scr- Hro\,·n, JJM/1 . 420. 673; Ric: hard A. Horsley. Tlu J. ib<'mlion uj C/lri.111ruu: T/J~ btfmuJ A'tH'm l iwx in St~tial Gmt..xt (N<:\\' York: Contin uum. 1989: reprint. Eugene. O R: Wipr & Stock. 2006). 102-IO:J.

33

The Cradle and t he Grave If we take an t:\·cn b road e r persp ecti\'c on the p arallel beL ween the birth and resurrectio n nar ratives high lighted by McBride- keep ing in ,·iew the whole birth .sto ry, and the refore a lso t he broader n arr a tive of wh ich th e appeara nce at the c m ptr tomb is p art-then we
And she g;we birth {mttin tv.rbj 10 h er lirslhorn son and wr.tp pcd h im in b and s of dolh [t~whl verb/ a nd laid [nw.in m•tb} him in a manger b ccau.sc I he re was no place fOr t hem in I he: inn lfrn-tlurexplmwttJJ)' dllu~J The n he took fpartidplt:} it (= th e bod )' ofJ csus] d own wrap ped [main m't'b} it in a linen doth a n d laid [ma.iu vetb} it in a I'OCk·hewn Lo mb where no one had e\'Cr been laid (furtlurr explmwuny d m uej

~

Brown. Rirth. :199.

br Luke Timot hy Johnson. 11u Gt>Jf14'1 ~.tf J.uk" (Sacr:a Pat,rina 3: Collcge,·ille. MN: Liturgical Press, 1991}. 53.

r. :\point noled. teutali,·dr,

34

ftm /Joxall

In t he receptio n h istor}' of Luke. the potelllia l for such a parallel must h ;wc been delcctcd rela1ivcJy early, for it is rcOccted in the Latin Vulg
Revisit ing the Shepherds Fin
Brov;n. Hil111. 420.

~

Ibid., 421 -2:~.

However. the shepherds a re not mere observers. Two fu rthe r comments arc relev<ml. one intc rtextual. the other int ratextual. The intcrlextual point p ick...; up on echoes between the stoq• of t he sh e phe rds' encoun ter with the angel and !he O ld lCstamcnt commission ing of Moses (anothe r shepherd) at Mount Horeb. The two scenes share SC\'Cra l fo rmal ch:tr.tctcristics, even tho ugh Lhc Lulmn storr lack..; a n objection from the shepherds: I. Ap pearance of an a ng el or the Lord. 2. Reaction of the seer(s). 3. Ang elic message.

4.

[O~j cction].

5 . G i\'ing of a sign .

This parallel with Mo.o;es' com m issio n ing is the most st riking. not least in Lhe phrase introducing point 5 ("and this s h all be the sign for you ." Exod 3:12: cf. Luke 2: I2), a lthoug h we mighl also compare the commissioning of Gideon in

.Judg 6."' The shephe rds, the re fore, rect•ivc ll d i\'ine commissioning. a kin to thal received by Moses at t he burning b ush. while watch ing o ve r his father-in-law's flock ([xo d 3). o r br Gid eon at the oak at O p h ra h , a fte r which the Lord promised h im "peace" tJudg 6). Like Moses a nd G ideon. the .sheph e rds of Bet h le hem arc also give n a sign ( Exod 3:12: .Judg G:Ji). This suggests t hat. like Moses a nd Gideon. and like t hcir0 \\'"11 ancestor Da,•id. the shepherd-king from Bethlehem. they too h :l\'t· a particular las k to fu lfill in relalion to God's people. The other comment, p ic king up on a n echo la1er in Luke's own text, relates to their transformation from pas..o;ivc observers to active p layers. nnd helps clarify the character of 1he commission they ha\'C rece i\'cd. As a re.o;tdt o f Lhc angelic a nnouncement, they go a n d "sec." then ~teH"' wh at 1hey h:t\'e seen. a nd fi n ally "return." glorirr ing and praising God. In other words. they become preachers of I he go.o;pel. the numgl'/itJII that 1h ey havejusl h eard fmm 1he angel (2 :10). Wou ld not an ;mcnti\'C read er of the gospel-not o n a first read ing b ut on subsequent rcadinbrs-detect anothe r ech o here of the e nd of Luke 's first volumt:? As McBride h as n oticed . the)' first share the same ministry a..o; 1he wome n-perhaps as inadmissib le witnesses- wh o a n nounce {to the a bsent. apostles. 24: 10) what they h ~we heard and seen. But they a re equally pion eering <tpo.o;tlcs lhe m.sdves. anticip ating a t the b irth the mission that will onl)' b e possible in t he light of Chr is t's resurrection and asccnsion.31 Again, setting two

50 Ibid.. lf16-57 (applied to the $torics or the a nnunciations to Zechariah ;mel Mary). ~ Although Luke docs not explici t !~· make this connection. other Nc\•·Testamenl \,·riten can $)X:ak or Christ's death-r~urrl"ct iolt-~uc:eusi on using the l:mgu:tJ,'\': of ~bir th~ (<".g.. j ohn 16:21-2'2: Col J:IS: RC\' 1:5; 12:5).

3G

ftm /Joxall

passages alongside each othe r may d arify the p arallel: The sh e phe rds ll"lllrmd. g/Qrijyi11ga11d prai.fiug God for all t hey had h eard a nd seen . •1s il h ad been Lold I he m (Luke 2 :20). And lhcy L= th e eleven and their companio ns] worship ped him. a nd retum~d to J e rusalem \v-ith g reat j oy-: and t he)' we r e co n tinu:•llt' in th e te mple ble.uing God ( Luke 24:52-;3). A sign ific.-1111 number of a ncien t tmmuscriptl> m a ke the connectio n :u 24:53 C\"ell mo re e xplic it. with Lhc longer reading ··p raising an d blessing Go d .. (o r in some versions " blt$Sin g and p raising Go d ").

Concluding Reflections V\''lmt has been attem pted in this c..o;say-with fairty broad b ru.shsLrokC"s-is a n exploration oflhc potential inhe re nt in Luke's nati\'ityst<>r y. as illuminated by the to()IS o f nar rati\"C c riticis m. If sim ilar in ~ights h ave been d etected he re to those achieved by artisLo; su ch ao; Gh ir la nd aio . that may well be e \'iden ce tOr similar sym· pathies and inte rpretative strategies. To e nt.e r sym p;nhe tica llr into the ric h S)'IH· bolic wo r ld that Luke's mlrratjve pre>cnL.;. allowing our h orizo n s to be expanded a nd our imagin;ttions sharpened . is an approach to th e tex t that ca nno tlea\'c u s dea.achcd o r unmm.-cd. If the contours sketched o ut he re are no1 wholly wide o f the mark. mo rcO\-cr, atle-.tsl two implications arc worth highlig hting . First. Luke's fi rs-1 two chapters can be seen as som et h ing akin to a traile r fo r l l fi lm. in which key scenes and ch~nacte rs arc Oash cd m om e n ta r ily across the screen , a n ticipating th e unfold ing plot bdOre the fi lm it.sdf begins. In particu· tar. Lu ke's b inh story p roclaims that what th e disciple..o; were only ::1blc to sec in ligln of lh e :uccnsion-thal Jesus had been m ad e botJ1 Lord and Messiah (Acts 2 :36)-was alrc-.ld )' the re a t the bcgi1m in g o f his earthly life ( Luke 2:1 1). So too wa.s h is destiny: th e o n e " 'hose b irth brings peace "'ill pro\'o ke .such a ho stile l'<:ac· tio n that he will late r speak of bring in g, not peace. b u t d i\'ision ( 12:5 1). Tb be born is for C hrisl also to be rejected and to die, and so to en t.e r his g lo ry (24:2 6). Second, to listen alle nt in:ly to Luke's mnivity .sto r )' is an invitation to e n ter into it and becom e o n e of its ch ar.tcte rs. Hea·e th e sh e phe rds serve as the p a r· tic u lar model fo r t he id eal re.'\der. In their t ransfonn:Hion fro m o bse r\'ers o f the a ng elic a p pearance to aclivc p ro daimcrs of 1he gospel. lhcy -anticip ate Lhe late r aposto lic m ission . and ser\'C!' as models fo r all preache rs of Lhc good n e ws. If t heir c h :uact.c r as despised and m a rg inal ftgu l'cs is pan of Luke's plot. I he n the challe n ge to Luke's read ers is all lhe g reate r. 1l poses th e question: wh:·ll kind of p erson does one ha\'e l.o be in o rd er to be a b le: to .sec a n a ngel. a nd th u s h ave t he cotn·agc to ident ify o n eself with t he c rucifi ed babe o f lk lh lchem. 1h e sig n thaL will be opposed?

Chapter 3

Prophetic Voices of Elizabeth, Mary, and Anna in Lu ke 1- 2 Barba ra E. Reid, O. P.

On~ of th e most prominent inmgcs o f J esus in the Th ird Gospel is th at o f rejc::c:Lcd prophet ( L uke 4:24: 1 3: 33 -34~ 24:19 - 20). In the opening chapters. howc\'c r. it is Elizabeth, ~'hl ry. a n d Anna who embody the prophetic m ission . and who prefigure the ways in wh ich it will take fo n n in.Je.o;us' life. Late r. J esus• d isciples pa n icipatc in the prophetic m is..o;ion and contin ue it nfler h is death and resurrectio n (Lu ke 24:48; Acls 1:8). In th is essay. I will fOc us o n th e wa rs in wh ich the p roph etic '''Om en in Lu ke. p articular ly in the in fancy narrati\'cs, can mod el tOr contemporary women a nd men how to a r ticulate a n altern ative visio n o f God 's reign :owd mobilize cncrg ie.s for tra n sfonmllive action that will help to bring :d>Out that reig n . I will a l.so e xplore how women a rc .silen ced in Lu ke and ways in wh ich women can fi nd their n)icc in a p atr ia rch al world .

Prophetic Women Ancestors As Lu ke .sets the stage fo r h is gospel in the first two c h a pte rs. th ree women take prom in elll roles: Eliza bet h , M :tq•. and An n a. Although only An na is exp licit!}' ca lled a p rophet (Lu ke 2:36),' each of 1h esc Lince \\'Omen c m bod · ics c h aracte r istic..; of a prophet. As Wilda Gafne}' has .sho wn. Israel's p ro phcu a rc vessels of divin e communication, whose activities includ e not o n ly declaring oracles, b u t also ~e ngagi ng in intercessory prayer, d a ncin g. dru m m ing. singin g. g iving and interpreting laws. delivering o racles on be h alf o f YHWH (somct intt$ in ecstal>)'. som e ti mes dcm onst.mtin :ly). resolving d ispute..;. working , \·onders. m usterin g 1roop.s and fighting battles. an:h iv-i ng their o racles in wr itin g, and experiencing visions." 2 Su ch women prop he ts a re found through· o ut the can on o f the O ld Testament. There a rc five who a rc specifically n amed

prcrcrable to call Anna a -prophet" (as in NRSV). rathcr tha n ~prophdcss" (a.s in NAB. NJB. NASB). .so that she is ~een on a par with male prophds. t Wilda C. Gafucy. Dmtghl"'·' rif '' '"ir~m. n~u•.:tt l"mflh~l.f ;,. :h tdntt IJrm:l (Minneapolis: }·ort re.s.~. 2008). 6. 1

It

i~

38

Ba.rb
as prophcL.s : Miriam ( Exod 15:20). Deborah t)udg 4:4), Huldah {2 Kgs 2 2:14: 2 Chr 34:22), Lhe unnamed woman with whom Isaiah f;nh er.s a child {lsa 8 :3). a nd Noadiah ( ).l"e h 6 :14). In addition. thcrt' are n•fcrcnccs in J oel (3:1-2) a nd £7.e kicl ( 13: 17) to daughlcrs who prophesy, and I C h ron id C'!s (25:4 - 6) spe;tks of Heman who d irects h is sons and daughte rs in musical prophecy. The Talmud (i~legillah I>Ia) adds Sara h. H annah . Abig;til. and Esthe r to those wome n rccogni1.ed as prophets. In the Nc'" Tcstam cnl. besides Anna, the four virgin d aughlcrs of Philip h a\'e the gift of prophecy (Acts 21:9). as \\'ell as th e wome n p rop hets o f Co ri nlh ( I Cor 11:5). A f;tls~:: woman prophet appears in Re,•clat ion (2:20-23). As Gafn cy points out, the re are ··mo re female p rophet$ in t he H eb r~w Scr i p lt~res th an h ;we previouslr been discussed , an d cer tain!}' more in ancient Israel than hav~ been included in th~ Scriptures."!'! T he same can also be .said fO r C'::trly Ch ristianity. To the fi rst h~arers of Luke's Gospel. Eli:r.abeth. Mary. a nd Ann;, would han: b een casil)' recogn izab le as proph~lic figu res. vessels o f divine communi c~llion o f God's new ~1 ct i on in C hrist.

Prophetic Call (Lu ke 1:26- 38) We turn fi rst to Mar}' of Naz~udh .4 The scene o f the Annunciat ion ( Luke 1:26- 38) is a most fa m iliar stor}' and a pop u lar su~ec t in Christian art. Man}' pa inters and wrilcrs haYe focused on Mar}''s p ietr. purity.jor. and submissio n in he r encounter with God 's messenger. Rut there is an othe r side to her story. A.s Luk~ t ~l l s it, Mary is not described as prayitlg (ofLe n .sh~ is d epicted as kneeling at a pritr-dieu!) but, like the Ga li l~an fish erfOik whom.Jcsu..-; calls to be d iscip le..; (5: 1- 1 1), .she h~1s an ~x t r.tordi n aq• enco unter with th e Divine in the m id •;t_or evcrychy life. She is a n ordinary Galilean woman who is making wedding p lans when 1he call comc.s to d o someth ing extraordinary wit h God•s gr·ace. Th;H i.s how the call u~>uall}' comes to a prophet.-in the m ids1 of t:n: ryd ~l}' life. i\•fary. like o th er prophets. is full of questio n s and fea r. ( .ike Jeremiah who o~ccted that he was to o young Ucr 1:6) an d Moses who ins isted h e couldn't speak well (E.xod 4:10). Mar}' cann ot fathom ho w the message she hear.s from Gabriel could be p o ssib le' ( Luke 1:3 4). Every p roph et rea li z~s that the task is grcalcr th an their human abi l iti~s. But God a lways gives as..'> ttr.tnces o f divi n~ assistance. To.Jeremia h God ins ists .. Do n ot be :tfra id . . . I am with you to deli\'er you .. (lcr 1:8). For Most·.s. God p m\'idcs a comp;mion. Aa ron. and g uarantees, ~ 1 will be with your mouth a n d "rith h i.s mou th. and will teach }'Oll wh;u you shall do" (Exod 4 :15). So, too. God assu res Mary 1h m u gh Gabriel that t he Hot}' } ibid .. 20. 1

On Mary. sec 1-:lizabcth Johnson. 1ht~\' Our Sisl<'r: A Mi•1tt (~cw York: Continuum. 2003).

Tlt<'ol ogy

rif Mar.v ;,. tJu- Cmrmumillll tif

1·1iuzbtth. MmJ. aud A una

39

Spiril will come upon h e r and the power of the Most H igh will o vershadow her ( Luke 1:35) and th;tl nothing is impossib le fOr God (1:37}. Mary is like l~iah and o ther prophets, who feel the .spirit of God come upon them ( l.sa 6 1: 1; Ezek 2:2) wil h
Elizabeth: Companioning Mentor and Prophet of Grace (Luke 1:39- 45) Although we oflen e nvision Mary, the youngcrwoman. as going toJudea to help her older rci:Ui\'e [ Iizabeth . I h e gospel portrays Elizabeth in th~ role o f wise m entor fo r MaT}'· Eli:l'.:tbeth has known God and has been fai lhful many long years. Luke says she h~-ts been "righteous" herore God . living blam elessly. with inlcgrity. according to all God's commands. a ll her days ( Luke 1:6), des pite the fact thai she h ;t.s suiTe red greally. In first- century Paleslinian c u lture. a woman who is child less is looked upon with d isdain {1 :25). We can imagine I h al behind F.t izabclh 's back people h owe specu lated all her married life a bo ut what sin she musl h ave com m illed to be .so punished h)' God. De.o;pile a ll th is. Elizabeth, in I he unknO\l'"ing and the anguish. has been fa ithful a n d upright in C\'cry way. Sh~ isjusl. the one to accompany Ma ry throug h h e r d ifficull days. to help Mary claim her own inlegrity. a n d lo rc;joice in the hope that will be birlhed ror the world front her freely g i,·en '')'Cs."'' 1\'hmy o r the tn:tle propheL.o; in the Bible are ponr.1.yed as.solilal')' fib•1.u·e.o; who act :tlonc (like F.ljjah in ) Kgs 19:10), mediating b etween God a nd Lhc people. In lhc Visit.
~ 5«: further Barbara E. Reid. Cltao.•1"g tM n..tt..•· l'arlt 1\Dwu" i11lh<' lrlJ.•I"'I rifl. ~Ak" (Collrgf:rilk : Lit urgic~t11•ress, 1996). 55--85.

40

Ba.rb
of p rophet ic comp;mionship . Mary and Elizabeth a re not lo nc-nmg<"r figu res who take o n the whole world all by themselves. These women prop h e ts know the ir deep need fo r one a nother and for shared wisdom. They a rc like Ruth a nd Naomi (Ruth l-4) and Moses' mother and sister a n d Pharaoh's daughter (Exo d 2 :1 - 10). who collaborate toget he r to accom p lish God 's purposes. They know that the p rophetic wo rd a r ises from th e rnid.sl. of t heir ex pe r ie n ce in community. n o t on ly in in d ividual intimate commun ion with God. ·w ith iauuition :lnd insight. together Mary a nd Eli1.aheth abandon themselves into the a rms o f Holy ~·Iyster)'. a llowing the Divine t.o e nvelop the m and susl:,in them in the unknowing. Both wome n arc portrared as d eep l}' contcm p lmivc. a requisite quality for a prophet. Elizabet h . once she becomes prcgnanL stays in scchL.;ion, nurtur· ing the life within her. rdlccting on God•s grace and favor (luke 1:24- 25). Sim ilarly. Luke twice l.d ls us that Mar}' treasured e\'e rJihing in h e r heart. reflecting on the d ivin e ways that "'e re beyond knowing o r understand ing (2:19. 51). Both women arc "fill ed with th e Holy Spirit" (1:35. 4 1), impelling the m to speak propheticall}'· E lizab eth p rono unces blessing on Ma ry a nd h er child , ech o ing the word s of the p rophet Deborah, ~ Blessed a m ong women be J aet" Uudg 5:24), a n d of Moses to the Isr aelites, ~ Blessed shall be the fruit of you r womb"' (De u t 28:4).' Elizabeth 's prop h e tic b le-ssing also rccogni:t.c.~s the child Mary car r ies as "my Lo rd" ( Luke 1:43). the fi rst in Luke's Gospel to u sc this f're quent litlc forJesus.

Proclaiming an Alternative Vision (Luke 1:46- 56) Contem ple formerly opprcs..o;cd, a nd rclinquishmenl on th e p art of 1ho:>e hold ing the power. pri,·itege, and status. In the Magnifica!. we a lso sec a n examp le of I h e wa)'S in which women char actc r ist icall)' p ro phcsr: '"ith song and dance:. There arc strong parallels betwc.'t:n Mary'ssong ;md th at o f' lVIiri:-tm. h e r n a m e.o;ake. who led the Israelites r. 5« Hrillanr E. Wilson. ~l~ugn.acious l'rcc:unors a nd the Hearer or Peace:Jad.J uclilh. and ~ l ;uy in Luke I:42," Ci~llm/ir 1Ji61~1ll Qmtrlu/y 68 (2006) 436- fM).

1·1 iu zbtth. MmJ. a ud A u na

41

in sin g ing and d a ncing after their escape from the Egyp liatts ( Exo d 15: 1- 21).7 Miriam is ide ntified as a prophel in [xod 15:20 . wh e n she lead s the s inging and dancing with tamb ourine in hand .11 In h er role as p roph e t. Miriam feaclo; I he peo p le to understand their experience of libe ration as a g ift f ro m God and to fun he r im agin e- and thus b e •tblc to achieve- a ne w fut ure in the la n d of God's prom ise.? In a sim il:\r way..Ju d i! h a lso led her people in a ''ictory hymn a fLe r f reeing them f rom t he te1-ror of H olofcrncs (jd1 16:)- li ). :ts d id Debomh. afcer leading t he succes..o;fu l cam p aign against the Can:-tanite King .Jabin Uudg 5 :1-3 1). These kinds of songs a re nol sweet lullabies. altho u gh o ur usu al docile itn:tge of Mary h as take n t he edge o ff h e r wo rds . ..T hC)' h ;wc lma their power to stun a nd o ffcnd."111 The Guatemalan governme nt. however. recogn iz.ed I he ir re\'olmio nary pote ntial and b a nned the public recitation of the Magn ific
Finding One's Voice (Luke 1:57- 66) Fo llowing t he Visitation <m d Mary's canticle. Luke sh ifts t h e .scen e to Lhe circ umcision a nd na m ing of john I he Baptis t ( 1:5i-6 6). The re is le n sion a nd d rama in t hc sce ne. as the n eigh bors a n d l'clali\'CS gathe r for the celebra tio n . E\'e r yonc is re
i

Most likd y Ihe whole exodu.s hrmn \,·:ts originally led by Miriam. a nd not simJ>Ir Exod 15:2 1. which mirrors \'. I. Sec also l Sam 18:7. \\'he re the \\'OnH:n lead \'i<:torysougs a nd dancing. See rurthc:r GC'orgeJ. Hroakc. ·A Long-Lost Song of Miriam ... Riblktll ,\•v:ilul<'.
Ororah 'o·oonnd l Setd (~Exodus:· in l·linn<'n$ Bihl<' Cm"''"" 'lf((ry: r:.~JHmdrd Hdilio" 1"Uh <:d. Carol New:som :md Sharo n Ringe [l.ouisville: Westm in$ler John Knox. 1998). J0- 39. here 36) obsern:s thai Miriam's actions :and lineage arc priC"Stly a nd pro · poses that h<'r designation as prophel m:ay be due lo male tr:msmitters of the lradition who fbund this Iitle le.ss ol~ect ion ablc than ~ priest ." • Irene: Nowc:U. niH""" i•• lh<' Old TntomMI (College\·ille: Lilurgical l're$S, ]997), :>2. For a detailed Jist of parnll<'l$ b
:\ptK'•JPim.

42

Ba.rb
The experience of [Ji;r.:tbeth is like that o f many wome n who a ttempt to sp eak m u in the church to d ar. She has beC"n g in~n a prop hetic word and she knows the trmh of il. l.ukc d ocs n ot sar how Elir.abeth ca m e l.o knO\" the name of the child thou h ad been re vealed earlier to Zechariah in the temple (I : 13). BUl it is clea r that s he is deeply auuned to God and has the name righL The God-g ive n name fo r the c h ild . ~John"-J?O/ufmhr in He bre w-mean s ~vHWH has give n grace." This n am e not onl}' expresses the child 's char acte r a n d the parents• hopes for him. b ut a lso captures Eli1.:lbcth•s own experience o f God. h h a p pe ns oflcn th at women who h a\'C a prophetic word a rc not a t fi rst bd ic,·cd. ~ls when Mat)' Magdale n e, Joanna. Ma ry the mothcr o f James. a nd lhc other Galilean women p roclaim t he good new·s of lht• resurrectio n to the other d isciples (luke 24:9- l l).u Their word s seem like- ..an idle talc" ( NRSV) or .. p u re nonsense,. (NJB). And just as Peter g oes to the tomb 10 \'erify what the women have reported (24: 12) . so Zechu iah has to confirm Elizabeth's word b efore it is believed. It is p a rticu larly p ainfu l for women prophets when their word is d ismissed or d isbdievcd. o r ~1 ccc p1ed o n ly when echoed br :t m ale authority. It is a gran: loss for the belie ving community \v-hcn women's prophet ic gifts are ignored or nol we lcomed. Moreover, it is \ 'cry imporL'llll for women to articul;ue their experience o f God in their own \'Oice a nd their own language a nd with their own imagery. L ike wise. it is \'er )' important for the " 'hole communitr to h c;•r how God spe<1ks th rough fe m a le ex periences. Some times. as in the case of Elizabeth. it is only when m ale m ices are silenced that space is made for females to speak. It is also the case that .some \'o'Ontcn need lobe encouraged to fi nd their own \'Oice a nd daim it, so that their vaht· able contribution can be heard. A woman frien d in the stale of 01iapas. Mexico. shared how sh e w;,s becoming emboldened th rough altend ing womcn•s Bible study m eet ings. so as to express her faith within the group. Onc da)'· she attend ed a large m eeting of a bo ut three h undred women from a ll O\'e r the rcb.;on. Others ,,·e~ urging h e r to share her word in front o r the g roup. She lin ally stood and wa.,.; h ;mded the m icropho n e. Never having used one bC'forc. she put it to her car. W hen they l
For ongoing lradition.s about Mary ~lagd.a lene. sec J:me Schaberg. Tlu Jr.mwlf'rtiull "/:\f«ry l'lnd thr Cllrbtiat1 'JirrditiuJl (~e,,· York: Contjnuum. 2002). On women as contempomrr preachers. sc:c: Sarah Ann Fairbanks. Mliturgical Pr('aching b~' Women. A New Sign La nguage: or Sah·ation," in Thr f'llt•m· rif Ord
M«gill'llt:m•. Lr-~....,d.•. ApoayfHHt. It

1·1iuzbtth. MmJ. aud A una

43

Persistent Presence (Luke 2:36- 38) T he third in th~ Lrio o f wom~n p ro ph (jdt 16:23)."' If An na had b een m arried at J(mn ccn . then spcnl seYen rears :t.s a good wife. befOre her cighty·fo u r-year vigil in the temple. she wou ld be the same age as .Ju d it h . There arc o ther p ara llels with J u d ith . She too was a widow (Jdt 8 :4) '"ho - fasted all th e d ays o f he r , ,•idowhood,. (Jdl 8:6). and who prayed for the rescu e of lsrael .. wh ile the incense W~ls being o ffe red in the temple o f God in .Je r usalem" (jc:h 9 :1). O ne o f the not:lb le c h a r acter istics of Amm is lhal she is a persistent p resence- for m o re than eight d ecad es sh e filsLs a nd prays, d ar and n igh t. watching a n d waiting for the p ropitious mom e nt. A p rophet m ust peNC\'Cre I h rough the long, hard m ission entr usted to her o r him. In the O ld Testament we sec SC\'cral propheL.; who g row wear}' of 1heir task and try Lo a b a ndon it. At one point Moses complains to Cod that the burden of h is leaden;hip of the Israelites is wo h ea\'y: "Why have I not ro und faYo r in you r s-ight. lhal )'OU lay I he b u rde n of all I his peop le on me?"' (;-,[urn I I: 11). Moses- continucs, in sis-ting tllal h c w:ts not the one \v-ho g:w~ b irth to th is Ortlcry people. imp lying Lhal God need s to t:ake responsibility fo r thcm. He is so miserable t.hat h e as-ks God to d o I he favor o f kill ing h im al once. so that he n o longer has to face su ch d istress (Num 11:15). God•s reply is to give him assistance. by h :t\'ing him appoinl Se\'enty elders lo ltclp b ear the load . Jeremia h a lso decides at o ne poin t that he has had enough re\'i lement on account o f h is m iss-io n . He says: W Thc ,,·ord of the Lord has becom e for me a repmacll and d c1·i.sion all d:t}' long ,. <Jcr 20:8). So he d ecides he will no lo n ger speak in God 's n a m e: he will h o ld it all in . But then. he says. '-the re is something in me like a b u rning fh-c s-h ut up in mr b one..;; I am weary with ho ld ing il in. an d I cann ot'' (Jcr 20:9). T h e re is n o clue in Lu ke's text I h at An n a c\'C'r g rew weary o f he r long yean; o f attu ning her car to God's word. She exemplifies the- persiste nce a n d pe rS-C\'Cr
11

Sec: .f. K. Elliott. ·Anna'$ Age (Luke 2:36- j i')," Numu" 'fi<.•tttmrlll •tm 30 ( l988) I00-102.

44

Ba.rb
The other impo r L~ nt prophetic c.h aractc ristjc Lh:ll Ann a embodies i~ Lh:u sh e d isc:cm:'t th e propitious time to spc:tk th e auth entic word. A fa lse p roph el feels compe lled lO spcak o n C\'cr y topic at every moment. A genuine p rophet d iscerns Lhc p ropitiow; time to speak the word of comfort or the word of challe nge. B)' means of d iligent p rayer a p rophet attunes h e r or h is car U> God's voice. Anna waits c ighL)'· fo ur )'Cars fo r the lllOmcnt when God 's .salvation is rc,•calcd in the person o f J esus. And the n she d ot;sn 't stop speaking of this definitive rc,•clation- to a n y who will listen. sh e persists in a nnouncing God's new act of redemp tion. Sch olars oflcn call attention lo th e p airing o f women and men characters in the Gospel of Luke. The lisl includes Zechariah and Eli1.abeth : Sim eon a nd Anna; Lhe h ealing on a sabbath of a \\'Otnan bent o ve r ( 13:10-17) a nd Lhe healing on a sabbath of a man with dropsy (14:1 - 6). Hut there :ue sign ificant diffe rences in lhe way Luke portnays An na compared to h is dep iction of Simeon. Whereas Lu ke dcn>tes thirteen vc rS(.'S to a d etailed interchange betwc.'t:n Sim eon a n d Mary, c u lmin:\Ling in Simeon's canl icle (which is reciled by many C h ristians at compline each n ight). he gives Anna on I}' :t brief lhree verses. The re is n o canticle from her thal continues 10 be sung in the church's liturgy. b ut only the third-person repo rt Ih at ~she spoke about the child to all who were looking for the red ('mption of .Jerusalem" (2:38). He re we see Ihe fi rst instance where Lu ke sile n ces the voices o f women in h i.s Gospel. 1\eyond the infan cy n arralive. no woman speaks in the Gospel . cxccpl to be corrected ( 10:38- 42: I I:27-28) or d i.sbdicvcd (24: 11)_1 1 Admitled ly. in the AcLo; of the Aposllc.s. Luke places o n Peter's lips at Penlcco.sl the dedamlion that bolh ~you r .son s a nd your daughters shall p rophe..o;y" (Acts 2:17. c itingJocl 2:28 - 29), and h e tells u s that Philip h;\d fou r daugh ters who were p roph cL.o; (Acts 2 1:9). but he does not prcser\'e lOr us a ny of t he content of wh at 1hcse ICm ale prophets p ro claimed. In Luke's presenunion . it is Peter a n d Paul a n d the mak' d iscip les who are entrusled with the role of public prodatmllion.

Prophet J esus The powerful portrayals of female prophct.s in the infanq n;\rrati\'e p refigu re and prepare lhe w-ay fO r the prophetic mission ofj esu.s in lhc rem:linder of Lhe Gospel More 1h a n a ny o ther e\rangclist. Luke emph:c1sizcs .Jesus• ro le as p ropheL1" W hen Jesus fi rst a n noun ces his m ission in th e synagogu e at Sec: Marr Rose D'Angelo. ~women in l..uke-Acu: A Redactional ViC"\,·:· jmmud of Rihliml LiitfTtllmY 109 {1990) 44 I- 61. Stt :tl1>0 1\uni Richter Reimer. 11llmw i» tht' ;lrt.~ riftlv: .-\fX~.•·Ifr.~: ~• f ;.minbJ Liluomtirm T';r.rpr.-til,.. (Miunc:apoli.\: Fortress, 199.!)). On Mark's prC"sentation of women, sec Susan MiiiC"I', ~l 'hmn• ;,. Mnrk: In the Gospel or ~ fatt h C"\\' ( 14:5: 21: I I. 46) J rsus is called a prophet. a nd his words and deeds a rt" :said to fulfi ll those of the pro)>hcu who c:ame before him, particularly l:saiah 11

1·1 iu zbtth. MmJ. a ud A u na

45

Na1'.;tre lh ( Luke 4:18 - 19) . he e mploys th e wo rds of the prophet Isaiah (6 1: 1- 2) a nd recalls Elija h 's m inistr y to th e wid ow o f Z."lre p hal h ( Luke 4 :2 5-26) a nd Elish a•s c u re o f Naama n t he Syria n (4:2 7). Luke Lhc n pro ceeds to portr ay J esus• m ig h t)' deeds in p a r;tlld lines to Elijah a n d Eli.shoL.16 T h e question o f .Jesus• idc n tit)' as propll<:t is centra l to the d isc ussio n about .Jesus• r~:: J a ti o n sh ip to John the Ba ptis t (7:1 8- 35) and to t.hc sto r y of t he wom:m who lavis hes g rea t lo\'e o n .Jesus in tJlc ho m e o f Sim o n 1 h e Pha risee (7:36-50).10 Sp ecu lating o n .Jesus• id ent il)', b ol h Herod Ant ip as (9 :7- 8) a n d the c ro wds (9 :18 - 20) th in k 1h at "one o f t he ancie n t proph ct..'i has arisen ... As wit h all p rophets. 1h e re is a du:'ll r esponse to .Jesus• m essage and d eeds. Tho se \\'hom he raises up \\'ith his libe ratin g visio n a n d h is f reeing actio n s pn1ise God and fo llow .Jesus : th ose whose power. pri,•i1cge. and staut.s a rc 1h rcatc n ed by h is alternate Yis io n of life- in the rea lm o f Go d .set t he mselves in opposition to him. This d ual reactio n i.s \'i.sib le f rom the lir:st. as .Jesus m a kes h is o pen ing decla ration oCh is mission in the syn agog u e at Nazareth (4 :18 - 19). He first \\•in s a p p •·o,•a l a nd am aze m e n t (4:22), b ut the n I he cro wd tu rns on h im , ready to hurl him o ff a d iO' (4 :28 - 29 ). As the o pp ositio n becomes dead ly. !he thctnl." o f .Jesus as rejeclcd proph et su rfaces as the d o m inan t theo log ical explamltio n for the c r ucifixion o f.Jcsus in Lu ke 's Gospel ( 11:29 - 32: 13:33- 34; 22:64.; 24:19, 2 5. 27). ts T h e figures o f Ma ry. Eliza beth. ;w d Anna han: alread y p re pared the '"ay for 1h is mcs.o;age. In vario us \\'ays. each o f these wom e n exemplifies t h e .su ffe ring 1h at a p rophet u ndergoes. e \•en as sh e k no,,;s certain l}' the truth o f what God has r c,·c;tled to h e r. ~h ry. Elizabe th. a nd An na are each portrayed as contem· platiYe, c nl irclr dcvo 1ed to Go d a nd to doing wha t God asks. n o m atte r wh at !he co st. Lu ke p aints these po we rful p ro phetic wo m e n in the mold o f Israel's p rophets, .such as Miriam. Dc bora h. Hu ldah , and J ud ith. But a 1 th e .sam e time (Ma H 1:2~ : 2:5. 15, 17. 2 ~: 4:14; 5:17; 8:17: 12:17; 13:35: 2 1:4: 24: 15: 26:56: 27:9). There a re o nly three a llusions to .JN us as prophet in Ma rk (6:4. 15; 8:28). In the Gospel of John sewral reference s to J es uli as prOJ>het occur ( 1:45; 4:19. 29: 6: 14-15; 7:4-0- 41. 52: 9:1 7: 12:38). On Jesus in I he .fohann iue tradit ion. liec": Sand ra Sch neiders. 1\TiUm lhttt lin r Mti.J !Sd in _,..• Encmmun'r~g}~'-.111.• i11 th r Frmrlh Gfl.•-pl'l {r C\'. e dn; NC'W York Crossroad,

200:'1). •• Compare Lu ke 7:2-10 with 2 Kgs 5:1- 14; Luke 7: 11-17 ,,·ith I Kgs 17:17- 2-1 and 2 Kgs 4:18- 37: Luke 9:10-17 "'ith 2 Kif.' 4:42- 44. Jesus is also "taken up" into h~:m~n (l.uh: 9:51: 24:5 1; Acts 1:9) like El!jah (2 Kg.s 2: 11). One d ifT('rence betwt·en Jenl.i and El!jah ili that .fe':Sll.i rt'ruses to -call down fire: rrom hea\l'n" against his opponents (compare Luke 9:54 with 1 Kif.' 18:36-..18: 2 K~ l:9-14). li For further d iscus~i o n or thclic: episodes . .stt Barbara E. Reid, "Wisdom 'sCh ildre 11.fustific:d (~ l l. 11.16-19; Lk. 7.~ 1-35}," in Till' I Ail (~in. Ptlmhi <'H Jf lVono,.n. m,rk. and WUrlom. e d. Marr A nn Bc:~wis (Biblica l Seminar SG: l.ondon/ Ne\\· York: Sherfield Academic Press. 2002). 287- 305: "The Woma n Who Showt-"<1Gre at LO\l'." in Clmtm'ttg t/u &un l't~rl1, 107-23; n•Do You Sec: this Wom an~·: A Libt·rath~ Look at Luke 7. ~6-50 and St rategi(-.S !Or Reading Othe r Luka n Stories Against the Grain," in tl f f.mi 11i.d CnnJm,. Nm tlJ l .uk,, ed. Amy-:Jill Levine (FCNTEC 3: New York: Shemdd Academic J)r<'ss. '200'1). 106- 20. I! Reid. ·n,king L'/' tllr Clw:<. 87-12 1.

Ba.rb
46

he does n ot e n courage C h ristian women to L;tkc up th is m issio n . Luke wh o sees s~dva l io n h isiOt)' in clcarlr d elineated epochs of the l ..aw a nd the Proph ets. the n the new ~1gc that d4lWns with Jesus and h is fo llo we rs ( 16 :16), e nvisions leadership rolc'!s in the Jesus move m clll as firm ly cnl rusted to the m ale d isci· p ies. Yet he cannot ignore Ihe rcalily t hat wom e n such as Lydia and Prisca exe rcised th eir leadersh ip as heads or house c h u rc h es (Acts 16 :40~ 18:1- 4 . 18 - 28: cf. Rom 16:3- 5). instructed doq ucnl p reache rs (Acts 18:26). a n d continued

prophcsring fa ithfully (Acts 2:17: 21:9).

Conclusion Many women who try to speak a proph etic wo rd in tO
It

r>.b ry Catherine Hilkert.

For further rc-O.::clion.

~cc

S((rrmtu!ltttl l mf'lgi•mtitm

(NI.':\\' York: Continuum. 1997): Ka tharine Rhodf'S Hend.::rson.

Narrtting Gnu,.. /Wu:hing mul th<'

Gliil'i ·livwbltNmk,n. Jltrw 11't,rrttm tif ftlilll tlf7' Citnttgi11g tlu ~I ·UT!tl ( N('\\' York: Conlinuum. 2006): Dorolhre SOlie. -rtuSiln1t G'ry. MJslir.urrtt tmd R.-.~ilt#nu. t rans. Barbara and Marlin Rumschr-idt (M i nneapoli ~: ForlfC:$~, 2001): Kenneth E. Untenc:r. 111,. '"''tlrlia.•·tornl Wrilh'l>" ( Ke\\· York: J>aulisl. 200i}.

Chapter 4

Zechariah 's "Benedictus" (Luke 1:68-79): A New Look at a Familiar Text Lconard.J. Maluf

T he Bcned ictu s o fZcch:lriah.l h c fathe r ofjo h n lhc Baptist in the Gospel o f Lu ke. is a f
1

!'

Rk hardJ. Dillon. - rhe Benedict us in Micro-and r>.bcrocontext," Callm/k Rihliall (~lltl11<'rlJ 68 (2006) 457- 80. for Dillon, not onl}' docs the identifi cation of the •horn of sah<~tion" with Je~us re(luir< no proof. it hardly needs to he stated (note his oblique lang-uage when he discusses tute 1:69 on p. 462). The author pro\·ides a rairlrcomprehc nsi\'atlcrn in the comment:tf}' lradilion. only recently sho\\·· ing !'Oille .~igns of weakening: cf. Warren Carler. M7..echariall and lhe Benedictus (Luke I. 68-79). Practicing \\'h:tt h(' pr<"<~chcs ... Bihlim 69 ( 1988} 2.:)9- 47. e.sp . 241; Alben Van hO)'<", .. L' in h~rCt de Luc pour la prophCtk en Lc 1,76: 4.16-JO ct 22.60- 6b,.. in Tfl ,. Nmr Go.~J~il 199'2. cd. Fr:ms Van Stgbror.ck <'I r.l.: :S m ls (FS Frans Ndrynck: BETL IOO: l...cU\'t'n: l'ccun. 1992). 2 .l:i29- 48.esp. 2J529.

48

Li!otwrd.J. Maluf

Zecha riah's Bened ictus (Luke 1:68- 79) '"And Zechariah h is Uohn'sJ r~llhcr was filled with I he Holy Sp iril and he p roph esied. saying: MB!t:sscd is (the Lo rdi' • he Go d o fJ sm cJ. because h e visited and m ad e redemption fo r his people. &Ja nd he r;\iscd up a horn of s:'lh•ation for u.s in the house of h is serv;wt O:l\·id . "'as h e .spokt:: throug h th e mo uth of Ih e holy ones, his prophets fro m of o ld -

sal1Ntti.on Jmm our t•rumrie,f and from. 1M hand of all who Irate usn to sho w m e rcy to our fathers. and to rc me mb<"r his ho tr co \'e nant, ~ the o a th he S\\'Orc to Abraham our fat her. to g ra nt us" with out fear. dcli\'c rcd from the hand of o ur e n e m iesto serve h im '~i n holin ess and righteousness be fo re h im all of o ur days. " tt

NBut )'OU llln. c h ild . will be called proph e t of t h~ Most H igh. fO r you will go befOre the Lo rd to pre pare h is ways. 17 to g ive h is people kno wledge of a saiV<1Iitm.

;, tlu forgivtml!ss of the;r Jim·, 7l!th rough Lhc bm~·ds of the m ercy of o u r God . in which the Daystar from on h igh "'ill visit u s. ruto sh i n ~ o n t hose who sit in darkness and 1he shadow of deat h. to g uide o ur fCcL into th e '""l)' of p eace. ~"Kow the c h ild g re w and beca m e stro ng in spiril, a n d h c- was in the wild e rn ess till the d:tyofhis lmmifcstation to Israel.

Introductory Observations I acknowled ge. fi rst of all, that the g raphical devices I h :w e

~mploycd

(such as indentat ion. capita li;-.ation. it:o1lici;-. ation. d ivision into po~ti c lines and slro ph~s) do no t stern from the a uthor of the Gospel. At least th e o ldest m anuscr ipts we p ossess o f t h e Greek t ~xl of t he Be n ed ictus (t he o riginal auto graph h as no t sur,•ivcd) lack a ny h int of poetic artic.ul:-ttio n o r \'Crsilk ation. I h ave p resc nl ~d the te xt in poetic form at o n ly because usag~ in th e C hurch's liturgy. where its funct ion a nd fom1at ha\·e been aligned to that of Old Testament

!

The '''Ord .. Lord .. is absent he-re rrom a third-tentury papyrus {1>4) and the fiflh-centurr W:uhiugton Codex.

49 psalm s. has h a bilua tc:d most read ers to reading the Bc ned iclus in t h is way. For con\'enie n ce of re feren ce, I h ave a l.so induded standard verse numbering as il appears in printed Bible c:d itio n .s. There is n o sp olCc he re lO ente r into a fu ll-length discussion of the literary genre: of 1he Be nedict us. except to suggcstthal the p assage is not .so cvid cnlly a .song. h)''""· psalm. o r even prayer as most conunc n t.ators as.sumc ( parllr. no doubt, unde r th e inAuc n ce o f long -standing liturgica l usagc).4 Un like most of the O ld Testam e nt texts u sed as ··canticles'' in th e Catholic Office of Lauds. a ·song.. ge n re fo r Zcch:tria h •s uuc ra nc:c is n o t suppo n ed by any indicuio n in the text of Lu ke. What the Gospel text says cxp licillr is that Zechariah wspoke, blessing God ..." {1 :6 4), and th at he ~prophesied . saying . . ."' ( J:67). In its orig i n at contcxL. the n. 1he p•1ssage is m ore proplu~tic {nvdmnnlitm than it is .song. hymn. o r p r ayer. A.o; fO r the a rtic u lation of 1h e Be n ediclu.s into lWO p a r ts (n·4 68-7f): 76-79). even this principal division is n ot indicated graphic.tlly in 1h e two great fo u rth ccntur)' Bible manuscrip ts -Vaticanu s ( B) and Sinaiticus (S). As we sh;•ll .sec, ho wever. it is c mincntlyjuslified by •h est'n sc. [ ach of the two parL~ co mprises a single k ngthy se nte nce. with multiple subo rdin ate clauses. re producing th e com plex syntax of t he Greek orig inal. He n ce the prese ntatio n o r the passage in two p:•r ts will .serve the clarity of tn)' co mmc nt.arr. The fr.tming ve rses in iLS Gospel context (luke 1:67. 80) are r.trc1y consid c rcd pertine nt to the meaning of the Rc m;dictus. whic h is often assumed by scholars to be a pre-e xistent ·· h)'lnn ." inserted belatedly into it..; present place in the Gospel narrat ive .5 A diffCrenl perspective e m e1·gc:s unde r fll)' 0 \ \'"11 a.ssump lio n 1h;H Lu ke composed t he wo rds o f Zecharia h precisely for th<: contex t in which the)' -appe:lr.6 The e mphasis o n Zech aria h as '""(ather"' ofJohn the Baptist in ''· 67 is the n .seen as connected to t he first part of t he Be ned icnas. where the .. fathers,. of Israel arc explicitly and e mpha tically recalled (vv. 72-73). Sim ilarly. ,._ SO. wh ich immediately fO llows the Be n edictus. is seen to connect 4

4

4

4

f or a fuller discu.s.siou or the genre or the lk lll'diclus. sec chapter two of mr thesis extract. Tit" l't-op!ur:r tifbr/urrinlf: A Study oftJ:,. [$oudir1ru i11 llf, Clllli,xt of l.ollr~t-:ktJ (Rome: PontifkaJ Gr<"gorian U n i v~:rsi tr. :woo;. 43--08. > Raymond E. Bro••·n. Tlu Hio·u, tJ_{IItl' Ml'f.~itl!t: A Counwr11tm:r tm "'" l'ifm•ry Nttrmlhta <>[,\tttllflnOJ and l .uM. re\·. e-dn {New York: Ooubledar, 199:'1 (orig. 1977}), 347. Th~: hypothesis did not orihtin.att' ••·ith Brown. a nd il h:ts been repeatt-'f1 in many Lukan commentaries t hai han~ app<-ared since he \•·rote. ' That the a postolic: ~pe<'ch es in Acts arc l:argclr Luka u compositions. cre:at(:d pre risc:Jr for th r na rrati,·es in which they a ppear. is a \•·iddy hdd vie w 1oday. Scholarly opinion mar roR.e dar arri\'(' at a comparable assumplion regarding the ~canti cles,. or Luke's infancy nar-rat.h·e. In fact. since I he beginning of t he twentieth century. t hnC' h~wc alway~ been som<" who thought th:tt Luke \,·rotc thr- J~en ed i clu~: see Adolf H:unad:. · oas Magnifictt dcr Elisahc:th (l.uc.l. 46-55) nebs! ei1tigc:n 8cmcrkungeu 1.11 l .uc. I und 2." Sit.:ll•tgliJt-Tkl•l<' dn- kfirliJ,rftr}f /JIYIU..Vi~fum .'\lfadawil' t[.., u·;$11:1/Jrlltlflt'11 !IJ Jtn/in 27 ( 1900) 1-19. e.SI)· t:>-19. l·larn;Kk ·s argume nt$ in f.l\t>r of Lukan authonhiJ>oft he r>.b gnificat and Rr.nedictus ha\t: rk-'Yer been Clfcct ivdy reruted. in mr opiniUII. j

50

Li!otwrd.J. Mt~luf

esp ecially with its second p a r t, sin ce the verse .speaks only of the "ch ild ." wh o h as been addressed in \'. 76 . and whose prophetic ro le a nd m issio n is presen ted in t he follo wing n !rse. T h is litcrard a n ew a nd wonderfu l futu re for this same peopk' lobe inaugu rated by h is son John. A sim ilar tum from o riC"ntation towa rd the p:•st to fO r ward·loo king c xpcc· tat io n occurs in the broad e r context of I he Bencd ictus. namely, in the story of the birl h . circumcision . a n d nam ing ofJohn ( Luke 1:57-66). to wh ich the Bened ictus is a p pended. In this stor y, n eig hbo rs and relatives o f the dC"VOUI pric;o;tly fa m ily d ing to I h e p aUC"rns o f their p ast when I hey rush to call Eliz:ctbeth '.s newb o rn son ··Zech ariah." a fte r his f;tthcr. The mutually .support· iw in te rve ntions o f the c h ild•s p a rents, ho wever, override this com·e ntion al ch o ice. so :ots lo comp ly with a revelatio n from heaven. made p rior to h is conception ( Lu ke 1:1 3). which assigned to the c h ild a new n ame and d est iny: ~Joh n .shall bC" h is name." This turnin g from instincti\'e nostalg ia for the old to e m b r ace the hc.·a,·cn-in spired new in Lhe sto ry ol'jo h n's birth and naming is then refl ected in the two fo ld .structure o f the lk n cdictus.

The First Part of the Benedictus Such an overv-iew o f th e Hcncd ic t u;~; in context a.s I h :wc jll.Siskelch cd assu mes th at the first par t of th e texl is a bo ut the p ast h isiOt)' of Israel. u n d e rstood as the p roduct of d i\'ine concern and s.;tlvation for a chosen n atio n . Because of this d ivin e care, the peop le of Israel h a ve th e n been freC" to dt;\'Ote them· scln :-.s in retu rn- in h o liness and r ig lncousness- lo th e daily worsh ip of their God. Whal is po r tra.)'cd in chis read ing o f Luke 1:68- 75 is tlte salvtlliou of Jlu righteous. Previous com mentators, h oweve r. ha\'C rolllincly taken these \'Crses t.o rdCr instead to Chr ist and his saving m ission- an almost u nive rsally accepted reading that I'Csts prim:uil)' on wh al has a ppeared to be a so lid. albeit \'Cilcd . m essianic rdCrence in v. 69.' Indeed . once the id entification of the ~ horn of sahratio n'" in the House o f Da vid with JcstL<; is :\ss-u med o r accepted. the ' 1. Ho•':!ard Marshall. Tltr C#A\J>tl tif L•tlt~ {N IGTC: Exeter: Paternoster. 1978). 9 1 ("a mighlr Savior ): d . 8ro;,·n, 11u HI'•·Ut oflhr Mt.~~;t:rk. j i I.

inte1-pretatio n of t h is \'crsc exercises a d c:c.isi,·e influence o n I he way I he re m ai n· ing \'erses of Luke 1:6S-7:J (the fi rst p a rt of the Benedict us) are read a n d inte r· p rc.•tcd. Ta ke n in the mselves, ho weve r. these verses mar be t..~ ken to provide a the m a tically focused summary of Jsracl•s p ast- amo uming a t the s:unc tim e to a multid ime nsio nal p ortrait o fth c people's Lr;tditio nal *.salvation" understand · ing. whic h formed the ba.sis o r it,..; historical fa ith and religiou s p rac tice. T h e c hris!Oiog ical reading of this p art of the 1e xt. o n t he o ther hand. produces the stra n ge result !hat t he Mes.o;iah is alluded to ;md h is m ission desc r ibed in w. 68-75- prior lo the nfe-nma to lli.f forerunner ;u u. 76! The logic of the 1ex1 as a whole su fre rs in th is trad itional reading. e ven if Lhc e xpectat ion th a t t he text will fO llow a stric.lly c h ro no logical sc heme mar a p pear unneccs· sa r )'. A rresh loo k a t what Luke is doing in lite fir.sl part of I he Be nedict us is in any case possible. Might v. 69 n ot best be u n derstood as a d irect re fen:n ce to a s;wing intc rve nl ion by Jsrad•s God I h a t to ok place in O ld l Cstamc ntt im es? Is 1he inte1-preta tio n or the ·· horn of sa h·a tio n" as a rcre rencc to C h rist q uite as self-eviden t a.s is usu ;•llr assumed ? The p resent essay will address these qtlestions in :• th n~c -stc p p rocess. Firs!. I will sh ow why a c hriswlogical reading of Lu ke 1:69 is unlikely f rom a n e xegetical poinL of view. a n d in deed problematic ror a Chris tian read er. Second , I will p ropose an :tltc rna tive read ing or lhis verse : the ''ho rn of .sa lv~uion" is the D<widic. House or DynaSL)· iLsdf. " icwed :•s e mble m a tic of the God of Israel's ongoing, .sa\•ing commitme n t to h is people.8 And t h ird. cm nmclll ing briefly o n the te xt as Iran slated and presented earlic1·. I will show ho w well t he other \'erscs o f this part of the Bc n cdictus can be sho'''ll to fit in with a no n· c hristological reading o f v. 6 9: in the conte xt of p r aise a n d proclamation. I hey together survey Israel's p as! histor y in su ch a way as to h ighlighl a sah·atio n· type common t.o a number o f t h is story's c rucial mome n L'>- a type thai sta n ds in p artial, thoug h pointed. contr.\St lo t he ..s:.llvatio n "' or the Ch ristian er.t. portrdred inn·. 76-79.11

11

The penpectin:· ofl.uke 1:68-75 would thus deal .,..·i• h sah·ation-history. not christological propheq. We may compare the l.ukan revic"· or Israel itt' history in AciS 7:2-!J:J. li In her imightful essay .. Pugnacious Precursors and Ihe Bearer.of Peact<: J:td. Judith. a nd Marr in L1ik 1:42'' (CAII1t1lir Bibliml QM11rrl) ' 68 (2006) 436- 56). Briuany F.. Wilson has argued c:ogcntlr that a simila1· contr:tsl to lhc one I d('l« l (as dc:,-eloped by Luk<' in lhc lk nedictus) is pr<".sc:nl in thr w-ords :addressed to Marr by Eli:r.abcth in l.uke 1:42: ~nle»ed are you among,,-omC"n," wht'n t~ words :are re:td in tfl<:irlargernarl!'tive c.onh~xt. Tht< Old T~l:une nt texti that :tr(' echoed in thint'rsc: {ludg !J:24 a nd Jdt 13:18) speak or women w:ur-im~ in lsraC"I:S past ,,·ho are called wbln sed" \Ylten Ihey ~c nacl God's ,,·ill for Israel through \·iolcnt. t•w·n gruesome. mcam;'' (p. 4-42). The :author pointcdly noles thai H\,·hercasJ ad a nd Judilh are ''iolcnt aggr~sors... Mary is a peacef ul listener :and doer of God's "-ord ~ (p. .J:-6). Tht< ··nc.,..· :age" dimension or Lukes thinking in his infancy nar-ra li'~ is littwise detected hr Wilson in tht'1c ,,·ords of blessing uttered hr Elizabeth to Mary. read in their l~u-gc:-r context: .. htdec:d. Mary ushers in a new age. in which women arc called most blc~ ror their acts of peace rather tha n for tllcir acts ofviolence" (I>· 438). Sec also the aulhOI:Sapt comments on the second part of lh<' lknedictus. "'ith its nte5.'1age of peace: IOdsrad's future (p. 454).

52

Li!otwrd.J. Mt~luf

Moreover, Luke's Uc n cdic Lus h as parallels ,,,.ith M:mhcw•s infancr narr.t· tjve. If perhaps Lu ke knew a nd used Mau h ew's Go..o;pd. we can rcg:trd Ih e Ue nedictus as containing Luke's p rofOund m editation o n Mall 1:2 1, where the angd of the Lord comments on his n ame: ··rou ,,·jlt call his munc J esus. because h e will save h is peo p le from their sins."1'' This h eavenly interprcta· lion o f the n ame of .Jesus sars what .saiYation for the messianic era is: Luke will create a lite rary d iptych (a two-panclt;d prcscnLalion) lh:-1t highlights t h is novel n otion of salvation Jhnmgh Jht> df'vice ofcontm.fl with th e sal\'ation idc~-1 Lh:t l informed Jsrad•s regular undcrst:mding o f its own g lorious p:tst (as c xprcs..o;cd particularl}' in i1s Torah. Prophets. a n d \Vritings). The sam e usc of con t rast here a t work may a lso be detecte d in Luke 4 :24-27. O ld Testament te xts e\•o ked in these words of.Jesu s in the N::t;.t..:lrcth syn agogue tdl of prophcLo; who were scm to persons outside of Israel. T h i.s st mnge case o f .Jewish p rophets com missioned to act gracio u s!)' on behalf of Gentiles is h ig h lighted in Luke 's retel ling through t he device of a n tith· esis: ~lijah :md Elisha were not sent to man)' in Israel wh o suffCr c d s im i· lar afflictions. In Luke 4 it is the c ontrast with the norm. not ' xplicit in th4' Old 7~.dmntmt t;:xJ.s thNIU'tdVI'!S, tha i is d e \'c loped h)' Luke a nd thai cffCcti,·cly brings out th e n o ve It}' o f the universal messianic mission of.Jesus poru.•nd ed b)' t h ese prophet ic stories. Similarly. in Lu kc I :68- 75, Luke spdls o u t w h at is o n I)' im plicit in t he Mauhean te xt that e stablish es the m e an ing of the n ame J esus: ~ H e will s:wc h is p eople (·not from th,i·r 1'111:111-it~s-tu in Old Tt<.ftam;:nt timl's-bu{) fro-m t)uir sins" ( Matt 1:2 1). In the three sections th at follo w I will furthe r d evelop t h is id ea of the fi rst p
•o In iu Gospel context. the 1\eucdictus ~tand$ bc:h,·«n the storr of the' eire umci.sion and naming of.John a nd that ofJcsus (cf. L.utc 1::.7-66••2:2)). T he prophetic utterance loob bark to the one a nd forward to the other. Luke $ u.se of ~ I all he\'' has bcen sug· gestcd. br \'ariou.s scholar$ such as William R. Farmer. Th, Sy11t}pr ir. l'mbf,m: ~l Critiml ~htal.piJ, ~«oud c dn ( Dillsboro. NC: Wester n North Carolina Pre.ss, 1976): a nd Michael D. Goulder. Lllkt: A .t..n.~~ PmvuligJfll. 2 \Uls (JSNT Supple me nt lO: Shcrfidd: JSOT Press, 1989). 11 l11c: second l>:trt oft he 1\cnedictus i$ a poh·crful nprcssion of the: ..dawn'' (malliPII"') of a ll e\V age of pc':ICe. As is wc:Uknown. the age of Cae~a r Augustus (cf. l.uke 2:)) had been

hailed by Roman writers. J>articularlr Virgil. in $imilarf}• glo\\'ing ccnm. Remarkable par:tlld.s with Lu ke 1:76 - 79 in Virgitian literature h:t\'C yet to bt' fully explored. such a~ Virgil'$ ~Jnt, lines 24 - 4 1. The p:uaJ,'TIIJ>h begin$ with thr words.: -~:.J ru.... :u.m rll' f!u'r~ (-and )'OU. ... holr boy"). addrc:~scd to the chifd Augu.slus, and goes on to contr:Lsl the poem ofjor and light about to uufold with those traditional t'IJics that dealt with ]o\-c:·~ gloomy w~lrs.- The parallels here to 1he: two par u of 1he: Uenedichls. a.s i1tterpn.' ted hen•. arc remar kable. CJ'. a lso Orina... in line 30 and tukc 1 :781 11le~e parallel$ with l.ukc: l:i'6-i'9 a rt' closer ('\ "'ell than those: ofVirgil'~ ort·citc:d IOurth £dogue (4.18-19). which is discu~sc:d br Bro\,·n. 17al' BirrII of Uti! M I'.\'Jiall. 566-10.

53

Is the "Horn of Salvation" (Luke 1:69) an Allusion to J esus? This cxp rc:<>sio n is dea rly 1he crux of t he in te rpretation o f Ih e Be nt:dictu s as a '''h o le. a n d especially o f i1s first p a rt ( l .u ke 1:68-75). Since the tim e of O rige n, m ost C h ristia n s h ave inte rpreted the ~ h orn of salv;u ion"' as a se lf~evidenl rdCrc nc:.e to C h rist; rarelr wa.s tro u b le t.ake n to j ustifY I his ide tlti flc~ltion . Desp ite this lo ng h istory of inte rpretatio n. th e issu e o f th e refere nce in v. 69 dcsen ·es furth e r consideration. for seve r al re.;tsons:

I . J esu.s is not r dCr red to elsewh e re in the Ne w TesLatnc n t, or in early Christian literatu r e. :\s a "Ho rn ofSal\'ation." ll is not, the r efo r e. sdf+e,·id e n t th alt hc p hr.tse in ques lion is an earlychristolog ical title, as m ;Uly h a\'e sa id . Only if its co nte xt in th e Bene."<:~ictus d emand ed a r efe re nce toJ esus h e re wo u ld t h is in tc rprctin: op1 ion be compe lling. 2. The lc n n ~ l mrn•• b)' itself is not n o n n ally used by Ne w Tc.sla m c n t autl1o rs i tJ nmnution wilh} tsu:c. The o n ly exceptio n to 1his obser vation is Re \' 5:6. where 1 he Lamb. sta n ding as il we re .sla ug hte red , is said in p assing lo h :we se\'en ho rns and seve n eyes. To be su r e. the La m b h e re is t he r isen and g lorifi ed Ch ri:<>t. HO\,•ever. I he hom imabrer y is n o t fu rth e r d e \'doped . a n d seem s in fact to h a\·e lillie echo in th e re m ain d e r of the passage. In an}' c.o1se, n o actu al equa tion is he re m ade between "horn" a n d J esus. a n d !he re i.s n o reason to suspect th ai a fam ilia r, ear ly C h r i.stian title fo r J esus is e m p loyed , o r e ve n obliquely re fl ected in thi.s pas..o;age. 3. The e xact phrase " ho rn o f salvatio n .. (/u mJ .~Oiirias) llC\'Cr o ccu rs ll..f a ~r­ .f011al, mt'ssianir 1l'jmmu in the Old Testame n t. Jn t he only two ( pa ra llel) G reek O ld Testame nt te xts wh e re the wo rds a ppear (2 Sam 22:3: Ps 17( 18 ):3 LX X). th e y serve eit he1· as a symbolic d esc ription o f God o r a.s a mun e by whic h God is addressed.'? It is d ear. lh crc fo rc . that Lu ke d id n o t inte n d to reproduce a n exact SC"ptuagin tal u sage h e r e: - h o r n of salvatio n " ca n not log ically b e take n as a name O l ' descrip tio n o f God in t he S}'n tax Lu ke g i,·es it (- tJu God ufhral'l raiJt:d wp ll hom of.mlvlltion / =God/ jM us.. ). The question remains o pe n as to wh at exactly Lu ke d id inte nd by t h is ex p ressio n : bu t it i.s n o t possib le to d etermine its rcfe n :n ce in l.uke simply th roug h a stu d y o f Old Testame nt usa~re of th e phrase. 4 . T h e term "h o rn" (J(I"rtr.f} as u sed melaphorically in rcle\'4tnl O ld Testa m e n t texts derives fro m the brule auinwl wotld: it is t he fear-p rovok ing "horn .. on

It Strictly speaking, tl1c: c:>:llr«.iiou usC'd in the' SC'pluagiHl is rmt <'>:actly ideutkal 10 !hat round in Lu ke 1:69. In both Old lbtamenl texts. !he c:xprc-!..1ion found is not -horn of sah-ation"' (kmu !.Othi·~··> but ·horn of"'.'' s.1h·ation ~ (/wn.~ .•iilf.l·ias muu}.

Li!otwrd.J.

Mt~luf

the head of certain mammals, p a rticularly the bull or the r h inoceros. u The imabrery is Lh:ll of aggrcssi,·e strength and (particularlr m ilitary) m ight: the power to defeat a n enemy br uu.c rly d estroying h im .H It is hard I)' self· evid ent that l .u kc would ha\'C seen this as appropriate imager)' fO r lhc s;dva· Lion dcli\'ered by a Messiah. whose mission he d escribes in the second p a rt of 1he Bent;dictus as b ring ing peace (1 :79: cf. 2: 14). Moreover. this mission ta kes p lace .. , h rough the bowcl.s (.tf)/agrhua) of the m e rcy of our God" ( 1:78). Indeed. thc:- Greek cerm :fj)/agdma. or -sp leen." used he re in a nu·t.aphorical scn.se. refe rs to a very d i ffen~ nt intenml bo d y p art. this timc:- taken from the human world. a nd wit h a spnholis1n that is a ntithetical to that of 1h e cxl.e n u l hard\\'";tre amp the h ead of a bull. In fact used m etaphorically, lhe te rm Jj)/agchua implies the d rnamism of heartfelt com1x1ssion. wh ich. a mong other t h ings. inspires tnovem e n t toward forgiveness. reconciliation. and peace (1:77-79)."; 5 . The fact 1h at the expression *ho rn of salvation"" occurs following 1he ,·erb -raised up" (Greek cpit"l?itt) in Luke 1:69 is taken b)' som e to require a per· Slmotl rdCrcnce for I he expression. Indeed . with God as su~ccl. lhe Ycrb cgt:irf'in most frequent!)' h as a person al obj ect in lhe Septuagint a nd New Tesutmenl.u-. Th is in itiall}' p lausible oqjccLion to my thesis m ay be met in l\\'0 complemcmary ways. Flr:st. a ny person named in this verse is (in my view) Om·id r.Lihcr ihan C h rist. Second. the contin uation of the tc xl does not in faCL confirm ll tlirrd~)' pastnwl wfen:ua for the expression -horn of salvation" in Luke I:69. Normally. when the Yc rb - raised up"" has a person as d irect o bject, we expect to find a pronoun-ofte n a rclati\'c pronoun-in the immediately following verse (e.g .. AcLo; 3 :15. 22: 5:30-.31: 13:22) lhat confirms the pe1·.somll reference. This pronou n introd uces a clau se thai. in d icales som ething furthe r ab o ul the person :tlluded to in lhe o r iginal state me nt : God raised up X. tvh.t~ d id such and .such a thing. or/.(} wllom ;t

., For the literal li<:nsc of the tc:rm krm~. or il~ verbal ecJui\'alentli. liC:t' c:spcciallr Exod 2 1:28-'ltJ LXX. The literal meaning of b ·m.• also .shines through po,,-erfullr in Deut 3~: II. ~·tn though the poetic context hc:rc ntO\'eli lhc: di~ourse to thr- len•! of metaphor. 11 For Ihili me1aphorkal use of k..tvu ~\ n d its \t:rbal cognates. lie<" especially l's .jj (44):5 LX X: rn J(Ji liJU.~ •vltdmm.~ llimim k··mliOwc•rj \\'('will gore our C"nemies''; abo Oeut :J-3:17: Ps 14S:l4. Th<"SC three texu are probab }' thr d Olielit Old Tt"$lament para I· leis to th e entire context of Luke I:69- 7 1. • ~ For the (CJUitr- liler.d) centr:ditr oft he term J/Hif[..an of the 8C"ncdictu..s. $CC Maancn f.f. Menken. "The Position of SPLAGCH~ I Zf.STHAI .and SPL.\GCHNA in the Gospel o'(Lukc," Novm• ·rht«'lfllrlllllm 30 (1988) lOi-14, here 112. 01her Lukan tt·xu that en~plor thi$ root co magnifi cent eiTect ;ue Lu ke i: l~: IO:Jj (wilh ~th e Sam ar ita n~ as liubject); 15:20 (where tl1c implied $Ul~ecJ ili God). In th<' New T<"Stamc:nt leuers the term Jp!ugrlum l'efcn to conti>.'U.~ion associated ;,·ith forgilt:ncss. reconciliation. and peace (Col 3:12-1.1: Phlm i : Phil I:8:2:1: IJohn ~: II ). •• In itlielf, howc\'t'r, the ;-erb rgrin:m in the Septuagint olkn has a non·pcr.sonal (or not d ire"ctln >C"rsonal) eN~ eel. 5«. e.g.. Pro\· 10: 12; II :16; f5: I: 29:22: I 1-:sdr fl:4•1;.fer 28 (!>I}: II LXX {''II"' JfJiril of tllt: king of the ~ I t-d e-$" is object here. with God I Lord] as liU~j «l).

55

promise was made. The: follow-up phrase to v. 69 in the Bcncdictus (fOund in \'. 7 1) is ins tead ll d'!finition ofsalvation as -s;tl\•ation from o ur e n e m ies <m d fro tn thc hand or a ll who h ate u s." This suggests th at i tl ''· 69 the e xpression - ho rn o f sa lvat ion" is inte nded im med iately and primaril)' to C\'Okc (not a person. b ut) a salvalitm lJP~ or 11otiou (associated with. or e p itomized by. David and h is Ho use). whic h is the n spe lled o Ul and d efined in v. 71. To paraphrase what is implied in the horn imagery in Luke 1:69. we m ight then lr.mslalc the ph rase: "a p o,\·erful sa lvation," o r b cllc r still: ··a salvation of formidable JxlftmCJ"' (and not ··a m ight}' S:wior,"' as so oflcn app ears in popular tr.tnslal ions o f the Bcncdictus). This argu ment against a d irectly personal reference in Luke 1:69 would a tso undercut I he o ~jcction th at the term - ho rn" by itsdf doc.s occur once or 1\\•ice in O ld Te.o;tam cnt te xt.o; as a persomtl rdCrencc to a future , messian ic descen d ant o fD:wid (cf. Ps 13 1( 132 ]:17 LXX and possibly Ezek 29:2 1). The o~ cct i on is b ast:d o n fact. but n ot q uite relenuu to our passage. In thc-.sc Old Testament texts. where the term ~ horn " patently refers to tt JH:rsmwl dt'scendmll ofDnvid. such a p e rsonal referen ce is a lso con tinned by an itnmcd i:ncly appen d ed clause con tain ing a pronoun with b ackward refere nce. Thus,l's 131( 132]: I i-JSa LXX read s: - The re I will make a h orn to sp rout for Oa\·id : J han: p re p a red a lamp fo r my anointed . H is e n e m ies I will clothe with sham e." He re we note t he possessive p rono un ~ h is.. (in t he phrase .. /Ji.J e nemies"). which confirms the p erson al rc.•fcrence. through the images of a h o rn and a lam p . in the p rc\'ious ,·cn;e. By way of con trdst, n o such pro noun follows the refe re n ce to - h o rn of salvatio n .. in Luke 1:69. Instead , the expression is expand ed upon through a dt;{tnilitm of ll .mlvllliOJHJPI! in ' '· 7 1. Once again, therefOre, Old Test;unclll usa:;,re is not a decisive guide for the inte rpretation o f .. h o rn o f salvation" in t he synt;n;. of Zechar ia h ·s Be n edictus. More C\'c n tha n by a n y of the f:tcts a n d ;ugumcnts m e n tio n ed earlier. a personal a llusion to j ttsu.s in Luke 1:69 bccom e..o; h igh ly problematic. when ''· 71- which d efines d ivine dclivcr.mcc as ..salvatio n from o ur e nemies a nd f ro m the h a n d o f all who h ate u s ..- is properly seen as c xp laitling 1h e salvation me nt io n ed in\'. 69, a nd perh a ps a lso the · red emptio n " of\'. 68Y II is ex tremdy unlikely 1h at Luke \\'Ottld lm\'e vic,,•ed 1he words o f''· 7 I as a n a p t d efln ition of

li

11le approach of those who interpre t this part of the Bcnct:lictu.s as rderring to Christ ha.s traditionally been to relr on the hypothc:sis of prc:-Lukan origin or to spiritualize the -c ncmic's" rrom ,,·hom Jesus is .suppOSt'd to san~. There is. howc,·c r, nothing in the text that supporLs such spiritualization. On the contrarr, if we .suppose that l.uke himself ili the author of the t<:xl. he ili ming a whole duster of cmwcntioual ternu and conceptli that relate to \'Cr}' real e>:pericnc.-s of li
56

Li!otwrd.J. Mt~luf

1he salvatio n .Jesus cam~ to d d i,·e r. But is !he re a via b le ahe rn:-ttive r eading o f Luke 1:69? It is to this questio n th at ( now turn.

Luke 1:69 as a Reference to David and his House The Ycrse (-and he raised u p a ho rn of salvation fOr us in tJte hou:o;e of h is scn·ant Da\•id ..) is in trig uing, becau s.c in o n e .s~ nsc il co n tains no tr.mshu ion d iffic ulty at aJI: every Greek word in the s.cn tc ncc i!> pc r fcctl}' lu cid as to it.,.; ·m~an i ng." a nd 1h e S}·nut:< o f the phrase is l i k~wis~ witho ut a p pare nt intcrprc· tive c h alle nge. It is t he refmmr.e of the ve rse a n d iL'> co nstitlllivc parts (not iu m eaning ) 1h at rc m:\ius o pt•n to d i,·e rgent in t~ rpretlvc possib ilities. l f. howe\'~ f. we ta k~ l>Cr iously the fa ct that this p art of th e B c n~d i c tus is in pr.Lise of the · Go d of Israel .. (v. 68
I!

tt

11tc main '~rbs in the second 1>:-Ul of the L\enedktus, on the other h an d, a r<" all in the future tense. I am assuming hcrco that the well·known t('X I~crit ical problem in ''· 78 i$ rcsoh-ed in f ·r.-~tnNu•111 Si•ulil!.v :J2 (1986) 268-82. <"spc:· ciallr 282 n. 16.

57 to establish a d yn :tstic e n tity 1h :tt cou ld provide -sa l vation ~ fo r Is mel. a b u lwark against enemies th :tl th rcatcncd iL.o; nat ional existen ce? I thin k that the IOIIow· ing point.s d cscn •c consideration:

I. Luke vic\\'S D:wid in a variety of ways. tmd 1101 tmiqut!IJ tts lm t1Jir.t'Slm; frropMi. lJHvtn lypt:ojChri.Jt. '!':1 On m o re tha n one occasio n in his AcLo; of the Apostles. Luke e ven goes so f;n as to draw an t•xplicit contrast between Da vid a nd Jesus (cf. Acts 2:2:)-36: 13:36- 37). In te rms of h is positive e valuation o f Da,•id , it is crucial above :til to recogn ize that. fOr Lu ke. Dav-i d hn$ a .mlvatiou·llisfrm·art rYJie thnl .\'lnmh Otl il-l ow-n and that d oes not fn, •o h•e spc~ i fic refe re n ce o r ori· entation to Ch r ist- except perhap s in tcn ns o f large sah·;nion ·hi.storical JXlttcrns. whic h m ight also involve contrast. Non-c h ristologic;tl assessments of Da vid occu r in Acll> 7:45- 46 ( D:wid 's role con cerning the "tent of wit· ness,. and tJ1c temp le} and esp ecially in Acts 13:22. 36 ( David as implicated in the history of God 's special care for the people of Israel, wh ich began with t ile titne o r their sojonrtl in the land o f Egyp t). I n the contex t of Acts 13:22 David is said to h ave been c h osen by God liJ tliJ all hi,f will. This m eans that David scn·ed God's p u rposes for h is peop le, Israel. in h is own Lime (d. Act..o; 13:36). wh ich
Mark l.. Strau.s.s. TJu• Dm.•idir ;\kvJiLtlt in Lrlltr-Arb7 Prumil-4' rmd ft.,. t··llt{ii/Jrrmt ;, l .uktm Cllrbt~l~gy (JS~'T Supplement 110; Shdlkld: ShdflC'ld Academic PrC'.ss. 1995).

58

Li!otwrd.J.

Mt~luf

of D::n,id , thoug h it is not clear tlnn it d ocs so. The Grct:k languag~ is quite capa ble of ~xprcs...,i ng t he m ean ing "from" (using li/HJ. Acts 13:23: Luke 2 :4: or i>k. Lu ke ):27: 2:4), but th ai is not what Zechariah actuail}' says in our w rse . O nly if we assu me in ad\•a n ce that the ~ h orn o f sal\':ttion" is a 1·cf· c rence to .Jesus a rc we inclin ed to thu s n.:vise the text in paraphrase. My proposal is that in this context the preposition t'tt sh ould be g ive n its nor· m i\1 rend ering. but with the som ewh at u ncommon sense: ~consiMi ng in." Althoug h this usage of the p repositio n m is unusu:•l. r e m:ukably il occurs again in lhe second part of the 1\cn cdic:tus itself: "a s:tl\'at ion (consist ing) in the forgi\'cness o f Ih eir sin s"' (v. 77).'11 This meaning of en is auested dsc· where in the New Testmnc m as wdl.1:1 On Ih is understanding. the verse as a whole is thus p roperly re nde red: W And he ra ised u p for us a horn of s:tl\'al ion (con sisting) in the house (or d}'tHlsty) of h is sen-ant David ." The most pe rtinent Old Testament back· ground text h e re is I he l-ast p a rt of I Chr 17:JO LXX: .. Mon:ovea·. 1 d eclare to }'Otl thm the Lord will b u ild you a house." These word.s a rc to be spoke n through the mouth of God's holy prophet Nath;m to God•s ser\'a nt. David (r.f. 1 C h r )7:4). and the dose associalion between David himself and h is House is. then echoed in the k ing's p ra}'Cr: .. Who am I, 0 Lord God. a nd wh:cll is m y house, that you h ;wc b ro ught me thus far?" (l Ch r 17:1 6 a nd cf. 17:22·27). In fact. these rdi::rcnccs occur in a chapter when: nume ro us 1 hcmcs ech oed in 1h e ear ly verses of 1h e Benedict us appea r. including that of the destruction of Israel's e n c m ies.n As noted C~lTi i c r. the pc rspcctiw o f Luke 1:69 is very dose to chat fOund. d iffcrenll)' expressed. in Acts 13:22 : -and wht'n he had removed him (Sau l), he raised up David to be their king: of whom he .s01id in test imony: •( ha\'c fo und in David th e son ofJ esse a man a fte r lll)' heart. who will do all my will .' .. ~

ln both''· 69 and ,. il, there is a similar pattern in the Gr«k: \'l."rb + accu.sati\'e noun + mliriru rorsah·ation") +<h·e ,,·ord/ phr:ue + ~01 (•conliisting in.. )+ dath·e noun + genit h~ phr:tse. ~ A 11imilar usage: apptars in Eph 2:15 (,., d~>gmruir. = ..consisting in ordinances"). aud p<'r· haps 1 Cor 4:20 (-consisting in sp«ch .. .consisting in pm,~r"). For this meaning of the Greek preposition""· see Frederick W. l>ankc:r. :\ (;IW!Ir--f:ugtil../1 l.twitvm ofth.. .\ '"'" '/i<:~tr:mnli rmd Olllrr J:m·ly Cltri.dirm J.itmllu,..~ third edn (Chicago: Uni\'t:nity of Chicago l'r<"S.1. 2000), :~:so (..,.ali H marker of specifl c.ation or substance''"). ~ As ili wdl knmnt. l Chr 17 closely par.tllcls 2 Sam 7. \\'hich can also be: r<'garded as Old 1hlamc:nt background for Luke I:69. Ho\,·e wr. the ide~• of the l.ord build ing a .. house~ for David is mo.s.l explicit in J Chr 17:10. :tnd the phrase that contains these: words docs nol in f:tct. :appear in tile 1>aralld \'t"r~ in the Gr<'t'k of2 Sam (2 Sam 7:11). Moreon-:r, the" specifi c vers.rs regarding Da,·id's J"" in this 1>.1li.sage (I Chr 11:11- 14). and in the: parallel \'-t.r~s of 2 S.1m 7, are ,otcchoc:d in Luke: 1:69. though clS<where in Luke. where tlle reference is to Jesus, parLo; of lhe.se \\"rses. or the: pa.ralld verses in 2 S.1m t . are indeed alluded to hr l.ukc (cf. Luke: l::J2- 33 an d 2 Sam 7:12. 16). WC' cnn thus S:t}· that l.ukc: d i!itinguishescarc:fuUr in these' Old Tntament texts bc:twec:n what is .said about David and his House. on the one hand. and 1>mphedes made. in :m isolate'd grou1> of \\"rses. that 1·d:tiC' to r1 Jf~~Tifi".J'm.; lkmid rmd '"hi~ ·.-1mmr Trig?'· on the otllcr. Onlr the: latter art' applie'd by Lukt• to .fcsu.s.

59 3. One la.sLfeature of Lu ke I:69 '''ould be ne fit fro m clo ser a ll.~ntio n. because its imp licatio n s 'arc commo nly ignored in I he comme ntar ies. ILis the sm all Greek p ro no un hi tJrin (~ for u s"). whose g r.t mmat i c~ll mean ing i.s pe rfectl)' d~:u, b ut whe re once ag~~i n we find a problem of rtjtt"''na . Since mo st Ch r istia ns e ncounter the Be n edictu s in t he co n text of liturgical u sc. the wus" in this \'~ rse is .spon taneOll.sly t~lken as a self·refere nce to the Christian commu n ity. Suc h a re feren ce makes little .sen se. ho we ve r, if the verse is 1·cad in its contex t in I he Go spel of Luke. Indeed , in iLs Lukan co ntext t he sp eake r i.s I h e J ewish priest Zecharia h , who wo uld n ::aur ally re present the people '''hose God is being praised in 1his .solemn prophetic u tterance. Zech a r iah the p r iest co uld the refo re rcfe1· lo .. u.s» : 26:5-IO:J osh 24:5 -7). The tc n n - us" in Luke 1:69 th erefore serves as an equi,•:tlent o f ~ Isra el "' and ''his p eopk " in v. 68.? I Poin ts m ad e thu.s rar esta blish lite pos.fibility of reading Luke 1:69 in a sa h·atio n· h istoric:.1l p e rspecti\'C. :l.s a refe re nce to th e time of David- a time of
T he Benediclus: An Analysis of Its Open ing Verses The !.ex t begin s with
?I

A similar seq ue nc~ or ~qui \'alent terms occurs in the second part or t he" Bc nedictus a nd in many Old Tt'sl:lmenl texts as well. Sec Hos ll:l-2: ~w h e n /Jt'rut was a child. llmoed him. arid out or Egypt I called my .nm. Th~ more I called t.h('m. the mort' they went awar rrom me." T he" sequence il.l Hosea is l.m :r/ ~ m.r .11m~ till'•"· lu the OJM:niug \l:nies or 1he Bencdicua (Luke I:68- 69). we find l.t•v' d - t /1 i$ /ff'~?pl<' ~ 1u.

60

Li!otwrd.J. Mt~luf

sum s u p God's fu n d ament;tl commillllC11L to h is people, which will be d cvd· oped in Lhc IOIIowingvcrses. Althou gh lhe wo rd s ~ 1\l cssed [be. or is] the God o f Israel." or a sim il:u fo n nul.:\, arc IOund in the Old Testa m e n t, m ost notabtr as an appendage to fou r o f the sm a lle r Psalm ··books"' that make u p the wh ole J>s:dtcr

(Pss 40:14(41:13]: 71 :18[72:18]; 88:!">3[89:52]. 10">:48 [ IOG:48J LXX). l.ukc places them in a n O\'erall .S}'tl la X that m o re closely resetn b lcs co mp:•rnblc expressions in narmtWt: poriilJJis of the Gnv:/1. Old '/io.flmmmt. i\•lost pc r tjn cntly. th e open ing p h rase of the Be n edict us C"choes the usage fo und in Exo d 18:10 and in I Kg.s 1:48. I n the first comparab le text, J eth ro. priest and fat hc r·in ·law of Mosc;o;, exclaims: -Btcs.sed [be] th e Lo rd . who has delivered rou out o f th~ hand o f 1h e Egyptian s" (Exod )8:10). Since Lu ke 1:6Sb (~ he visi1ed and m ade redemp tion fo r h is p eop le") mo.st likely refers- and n ot m crc1r alludes- to the E xo d us story, the para lid of I:GSa with lllis Exodus text is remarkable indeed : it d iffers only in I hat Zechariah is more removed in tim e from I he origin al en~n t a nd is the refore gi,·ing :t m o re comprch c n sin: overview of Israel's sah·a rion story th ;m was possible forJeth ro in t he f ra m ework o f Exodus. I therefore lr~m s l a lc v. 68 b: ·· he v-isited a nd made red emption fo r h is peo ple" rather than " he Juu visited . . .... which would suggest ;m event of th~ m :enl past.$ I n :tn oth c r tcxl. I Kg:s 1:48. ~~ sim il:\r fO rmul:'l is used by Da,·id in h is last ho u rs of lifC. confirming that God has indeed b u ilt h im a House. in accord.· ancc with h is promise (d. I C h r 17:10). by a llowing h im to sec h is son Solomon firm ly estab lish ed on h i:<> throne: ·· Blessed ( be the] Lord th~ God of Is rael. wh o has given today f rom my seed [onej to sit o n my th rone. and my eres witness it." The ope n ing verse o f the Bened ictus thus echoes O ld Testament texL.; in which Israel's God is praised for h is sm·ing inte rve n tio n s- at the time o f the Exo dus. as well as al 1he I ime of the rise of David 's h ouse (d. Lu ke I :69). T h e second part of Lu ke 1:6 8 g ives th~ fi rst of a series of motive clauses, explain ing why b rad's God is p r.•ised a n d g lorified: lw.cause h~ visill'd tmd mad-l' rfflemptiou for his ptrople. The , ,·ords .. Yis itcd" a n d - red emption .. arc not acciden· ta l. 1\oth a re kf1 -.vords \\'h ose rooL.o; are found in the G reek u ·anslation o f the story o r the E xo d us from Egypt as told in the 1-Jcbrc.·w Scrip ture!( (p ri mar ily the Bo o k of Exo dus) and 1h at e p itom iz.e ltiJO tlistin<-1 1mnnml.s of th is d iv-i ne saving in tc rvem ion that ga,,e b ir th to Is rael as a people. God's .. vi:<>it" is the event of his 1t1ki11g u()/it:e ofl1i.s ptopl~ i n I he d istress o f their cnslavcmcnl to the Eb•-yp tian Pharaoh. Both God•s ~v i.s i t.. to (or .. ta king notice

2So

:\ long discussion could be denned to 1he nuances or English usage- in tr.utslating Greek aorist \'t"rb.s (most!}' used ror past narrath·c). I would simpt)' nole here th:at th<' tr~mslat i on of thl" M:agnilicat cannot be used :as a decisi,·e g uide for how the app:arcntl)' comparable aorist vt-rbs in t he Benedict us should be rendered. T he Bc:ncdin us is about Mthe God or Israel." whereas M:arppl~:tb in praise of God ll'r St1Wm: By7..c-chariah 's lime. Israel's rd:attonship with God is centuries old, and hence the aori~l verbs used by the pious priest mar require di!Tercnt trcatmenl in tr:anslalion than those round in the M:agnilicat th:tl allude to recent t\·cnts in the' lilt- of Mary.

61 of") h is p..:oplc (the cogn ili\'e d im e n.sion o f the e\'cn l, ''' h ich p rcc('d e.s God's act j,·e in ten·cntion) a nd the great redcmpli\'c act itself arc fo rclo ld to th e pco· p ie of bnacl by "God'.s ho i)' o nes. h is propheL.; fro m of o ld"' ( Luke 1:70) - in this c:.a.se the patria rch joseph (d . Gen 50:24 LXX) . Moses. and Aaron ( Exod .3:1 6: 6 :6-7). (No te how the p ieces of the fi rst part of the Be n edict us a re already beginning to come toge the r to fo rm a co he re nt who le. based closely o n Lhc stor}' o flsracl as told in the j <"wish Scriptures.) The cycle 1h al goes fmm G od's anno uncing through h is ho i}' o n e (Joseph) tha t he '''ould ''\'isit'' his peo ple (Gcn 50:24) and the ackno wledgem e nt b)' the peop le tha t God had in fact fo llowed through o n this wvisit" ( Exod 4:3Jf16 is :dre~ldr complete in Ihe StOr}' of Exo dus before the the m e of n~dtrmptiou is bnmch ed fo r the fi rst Lime (Exod 6 :6). This the m e of rcdcmp1ion is similarly inlroduccd by a fnvphtrtic wmd (Exod 6 :6: cf. Luke I :70) prior lo i1s even ami e xecution by God and acknowled g m e nt by Israel (E.xod 14:30- 3 1). The tende n cy o( mo.sl comme ntators lo amalgam ate I he two verbal exprcssion.s in Lu ke 1:68. as tho ugh they were p a rallel rdCre nccs to the sam e specific event. is m isla ke n : inslead , the word "an d ,. (k({i) he re indicates a sy-ntax of p roper coordinatio n. a n d t he references a rc to two d i.st inct m oments with in th e overall s loq•of the Exod us- God's taking notice of hi:<> people in their sl:weq•and d istress. a nd God•s.su)>.o;cqu e n t m ightr act o r d cli\'erance of Isr ael throug h the wate rs o f the Red Sea. A similar inclinatio n to amalgamate is fo und in mosl comme n t:.1rics o n Lu ke 1:69. whic h is understo o d as interpreting the p receding ph rase (God h as ,·isitt;d a n d rcdcclllcd h is people by misi·11g up tt hom ofm lwliiou). ln stc.·ad . I he ka; (~an d "') t ha i inl roduces v. 69 is likewise best understood as making a p rope r coordination: the verse mo\'es o n to speak of a later phase of lsracl•s h istory. which like wise i1woh'C'd a d h·i ne saving intc rvc n lion. This I ime Go d's s:tlval ion was m ediated by O:wid a nd h is House, as fo retold lo lsr.tcl throug h the m outh of :.m a n o nymous holy p roph el: · The Lo rd h as spoke n co nce rning David: ·By !he hand of my servant David I will s:we my people from the hand o f Lhc Philistines"' (2 Sam 3:18 LXX). Since much o r this essay h as alrcad r focu sed o n Luke 1:69. I " 'ill mo ,·e fo n \'*.&rd no w to 1he follo wing ,·er.se. I ha"e nlreadr hinted at I he im p o rla nce of v. 70 as a n integral p arl of 1he Be n ed ictus. ,,-ith its rdCre ncc to the ho ly prophe ts t hroug h whom, in I he Old Test:uncnt books, God regula r ly announced his futu n: saving in len'C'ntion s (d . Jsa 43:12). Comme ntators ha,·e 100 h astily assumed th ai because p roph ecy and fu lfillment is im'Oivcd here the coniext must be chris lological; he nce v. 70

!I>

Nolc how lhis :tcknowlt':dgmcnt of God ·$ ,·i.sH to b rad in E.xod 4:31 kad$ immediatdr lo the ''-onhip of God. ,,·Jlich is the Ihem<'" of v. 75 in the Jk nedin us. This '"\isitation" i~ also d islincl from I he "\•isi( ' or God predicted lOr the f uture in the second pari or I he Bcncdicua. The Be nedict us is tlms
62

Li!otwrd.J. Mt~luf

is often taken to con fi n n a c hristo logical r~adi ng o f v. 69. This is a m istake. based on a lack of atletlli,·e re;\ding of the O ld Te.o;tament tc.•xts that a re Luke 's p rimar)' guides in this verse. The usc of the p ro p hetic voice to fo retell divine inte rn:ntions is (in Lu ke's u n derstanding) by n o m eans
r. While this 1heme :appc•ars innumerous Old Teslam<:nt texts. il is staled with cxtraordinarr

claritr and pilh in the Wisdom of Solomon: ~This was the c:x pcc l ~\l i on of your people: the sah·:1Liou or the righteous (nation) on Ihe one hand. and the destruction of [its] enemiN, on the otherH(Wis 18:7). Nole that lhis concept CX(>lidlly invoh·cs thl"' sal\<~ lion ofth<' n"t(lt· ,...,.m.•, \\"hic"h. together \\"ilh its many assodatt--d nolious. stands in striking contrast lo the sah-:alion for Jjn".-n that is the subject of Luk<' 1:76-79.

63

rightly o bscrvcd.111 th~ te xt should rather b e r~n dcred : ~ But you too. child . . ... The linking function is carried in this verse by the Greek pari ide dl! (~an d... or more probably .. b ut"). The m ild ly adversa tive connot.ation rcflcc:Lo; the fact that the salvation to he announ ced by the proph~t.John will d iffe r strikingly from that which c haracte r ized the Old Te.o;tamcnt stories of divine sa h'tand ing (cf. Luke 1:76-79). In Ill)' analrsis . the m e ntion of d eli\'crance from e nemies in v. 7 1 amounts lo a d efin itio n o f the sa h·ation~t ype conHnon to specific momcnLo; of Israel's past histo ry: p rincipalt)' I h a t of the e xodus. and that of the estab lishment of the Israelite monarchy with ));wid.' " The term ..salvation" (:riitiria) in this \'ersc i..o; t hus in p :•rallcl \v-ith the idea cont.:\in cd in .. made n :dcmption .. (\-'. 68) a nd in " horn of s:tl\'ation" (\', 69). The id ea of ~sa l\'a tjon fro m e nemies"' who are 1hreatcned b}' the Da,ridic horn hardly fits t he e r a and mis..o;ion o f Christ. where /t'1Vt!'of e n e mies i.s lhc n e'" a nd re \'olutio nary challenge is..o;ued to fo llowers of Christ ( Luke 6:27-36: cf. Matt 5:31-48: 1 Thes..o; 5:15: Rom 12:17-2 1; I Pct 3:9). On the other hand. the d estruction of Isract•s enemies is integral to the Old Test~~mcn l stories of God's saving presence to Israel in its mome nts of need. as descr ibed by t he: biblical writers. Verse 71 t hus cpitom i:t.\':S the way ~sa l\'alion .. was und en>tood in the tim e before Christ so as bet lcr to b r ing out the novelty of 1he new sal\'ation (v. 78) proper to 1he Christian e r a. A sim ilar contra..o;ting ~ Vanhorc-. nt:inti-rCldc l.uc." l.!l29--JI. T1lis spttactical oluer:ation ~tlso rr"num :s t hc ground rmm a commou .schol:ll'ly Oll inion

!II

jO

that sccs the two parts or the Benedict us as emanating from two unrelated sources. A unitrofauthoohip for th e Be ncdictus is stronglr indicatt.-d IH·rc . C\'tn if my intc-rprr"tation of the- te-xt as a whole rcnmiiiSopen for discussion. l.uke 1:69 refers direct !~· to God's girt to lsracl ol'tht· Oa\'idic Hou.sc as a bulh·ark or sah·ation :aboain~t the nation s e nemies. HoWC:\'r"r, tht" language used in the \W~ also rdkcl~ t>hr:aseology found frt"qucntly in the Book orJudgr"s. in connection with leadr"rs m i~cd UJl br God as ~sa\·i on'' of hrac-1 {c r. j udg 2:16. JS: :'1:9. 15). Hence Luke m:ay also intend a pas..Y ing allusion to this earlier pt.riod or the fudges ewn as he '"'riles d irccllpaboutthe rise or David and hi~ dvnastr (tf. AcL<> 7:45; ~~~:19).

Li!otwrd.J. Mt~luf

64

d iptrch of salvation-types . .symbo li1..cd by the d i\'ergent rc;o;ponscs of two evildo· e rs hanging one on c~lch sid e of the c rucified Jesus. is dmmaticallr p ortrayed toward the end o f Luke's Gospel. These two tc xL.o;, the Bencdictus in Luke 1:68-79 and the cnu:ifixion nar r.-tin:· in Luke 2 3:35- 43. conta in. resp cctivclr. the fi rst and last cluster:<> of ·sah·ation" te rminology fOund in the Gospel o f Luke.' 1 The final fo u r vcrs(.'.S of the firs t pan o f the BC"ned ictus (' '"· 72 -75) can b e regarded together as an expa nded ''iew of the sah,ation events a lluded t.o in 1he opening n : rse.s. This view n ow encompas.-:es the prehistory of 1hcse C\'ent...o; in the origin al p romise of God to lsrad•s p atriarchs a nd their aftermath in 1h e p ractice or piety and d i" ine worship. still ongoing in the activity o r th e priest Zechariah himself ( l .u ke I:5- 10). which was in each case the goal of God's sav· ing inter:e ntio ns on lsnel's behalf. Prior even 10 the med iated word of God that came to Israel throug h t he m omh o f its holy p mphcts (v. 70), p roclaiming Go
of 7.1'tlwriGh, 74-SS.

\'c:rs.e i'2a e to ~hO\\' {or, .sllO\\'iHg) mercy tO our fa thers") .SC:{'"IllS to Jxo a hinge line, linking the prc:viou.s ,·erscs of the Bcnedictus with th ose about to follow. The ambiguity of the expression Mour fat h{'"r~." which could refer to the patriardu or to the gc:nc:ralimu of b rae: I. or their male: represcntath·es. al the time of tl1c: exodus and that of the r ise of 1he Oavidic monarchy ma~· th u~ be intentional.

65

from hu m iliat ing service lo Israel 's e n e mies. b ut :tlso a salvatio n for the wo rship or s.cr.·ice o r Israel's God , ~ls che sto ry is told in the O ld Testamenl. ~! But I h e s.:wing inlcrvcntion of the Deity thac '"as mediated by the rise o f Da vid a nd h is House is also closely con nected . in the b ib lical story, t.o the worship o f God . Ind eed. David's son Solomon was to build a house for God " 'here Israel cou ld worship in gra nd style (2 Sam 7: 13). after bein g liberated from i ls e ne m ies.! • By no1 menljon ing eithe r I he temple or a n r of t he specifi c: place scu ings fo r 1he worship of God in I h e Exo dus stoq• (su ch :ts the mountain o r lhc d esert) in Luke I :74 -75, the a utho r o r the Benedict us leavc;o; th is verse open to evo ke 1he goal of bot h of the g reat d ivine intcn -cn tio n s that arc rdCrrcd 10 in""· 68- 69: God s:Wt$ his people Israel in general so that they will han : the f reed o m to wo rsh ip h im in h o lin ess a n d r ighteo usness. as the priest Zech ariah is doing in h is o wn I ime. But the most impor t:wt O ld Testam ent backgroun d fO r Lu ke 1:74-75 is a lmosl ccnain ly a famous in cide nt o f Israelite h istory that look p lace some lime be l\\'ccn the two g reat ~1c ts of d ivin e dclin!rance alluded to in Luke 1:68-69, the time of the entry of Israel into t he Promised Land under J oshua. The solem n cm·e n ant renewal cerem o n y th at is recorded in Joshua 24 i.s amply echoed in the language of luke 1:74- 75. Here, the people are put on the .sp ot by .Joshua as to wheth er they \\'ill serve the gods o f Lhe nat ions in Canaan o r re main fa ithru l to the God of Israel. More than o n ce the people a ffi rm their inte n tion Lo p ersevere in the worsh ip o r their God , a n d the inci· d ent te rminates h"i lh a n : r sc d iffen:ntly located in lh e ScpLUaginl a n d in t he Hebrew te xt: "And Israel wor:sh ipped (served ) the Lord a ll the d a ys o f.J o.shua a n d a ll 1he d a)'S o f the elders that liYcd as lon g as Joshua. and all that k new a ll t h e works o r the Lo rd wh ich h e worked fo r Israel" (.Josh 24:29 [31)). The closen ess of the langu age h ere IO th at o r Lu ke 1: 74 -75 h ard ly needs to b e su·es;o;ed.

Conclusion In a n article p ublished ro u r d ec.o1dcs ago. Do uglas .Jo n es su mmarized h is own conunen t.o; o n th e first p a r t o r the Bened icn1s as follows: "The first section o r the Be n ed ictus h :t.s thus c:debr:tled the coming o r the Messia h in terms d erived m:\iu ly from the O ld Testament, and according to ideas and conceptions which

~

See Exod 3:12: 4:23: 7:16: S:l, 20~ 9:1, all of which tc:
Li!otwrd.J. Mt~luf

66

never b"' be yo nd t he O ld Testame nt ho p e ...,.. The present es...o:ay h as allcmptcd to .supply a reason fo r thi!i a p p a re nt ano maly: the te rms in t he first p art of Ih e Ue ned ictus a re d erived from the O ld Testa m e n t, a nd never g o bc}·o n d the O ld Tcst~-lment ho pe. p recisely b cc;ms.c th ey arc inte nded to e vo ke n ot th e m cs· sian ic e r~ b ut the sto r y and the notion o f salvatio n that we re cu rre nt in the Old Tcst~-1mcn t iL.o;clf. The intc r pre ti\'C crux of th is te xt segm e nt or the Be nc d i<:Lus . as we h ave .seen . is Lu ke ) :69. Th is verse is b est read a.s a rd Crc ncc to the r ise o f D:wid :'lnd h is Ho u.sc. vie wed in the context of the God o f Jsracl•s most g e n e ro u s gifts o f salv'.tlio n to h is p eople, anno unced in ad nancc thr ough the mouth o f h is h oly p rophets. In Lu ke's d a r t h is co n ception of ~ h'
~

DouglasJones. ".'fhe Backgrmmd;md Ch.aractc:rorthc l.ukan Psalms."j mmud t1 17l"'Joioginll Studi~

19 ( 1968 ) 19-50, here :13.

Chapter 5

The Significance of the Inn for Luke's Infancy Narrative Nicho las King, SJ

The re is a popular slo r y of a small boy who exacted a terrible \'cngeancc on the producer of the schoo l's nat ivity p lay when he \ \'aS not sdC':'cted for 1h e starring ro le o f j osep h . but instc:·ad had to make do with playing the inn keeper. He brought the entire proceedings to a shuddering h ult '"hen Joseph and the heavily p regn:uu Mary banb"t"d o n hi:o; door ask ing for a bed for the n ig h t. simply by beaming a welcome and sa)'ing. .. Yes -come on in : th e re's plenty or room! .. Now that story evidently depe nds on 1h e traditio n al tra n slation of a pan icular expression in Luke 2:7. The Greek phrase en tii ktlJa~rmali h as u:<>uall)' b een translated ··in the inn"' ( N RSV. NAB. N IV). Hence. ~t he re was no room for them in the inn" is understood a.s the reason why J e..<ms was laid in a - reeding· Irough .. o r ~mang<: r." Rccentlr. howc,·c r. there has g rown up whal we may call a rc,·isionist inlcrprdalion: kolal)ww is a p lace where horses and other animals a rc un harnessed. and in this .sense iLcan certainty mean a n - inn." 1 But Luke hilS another '"ord :H hi.s d i.spo..<ml fO r - inn ... namely fumdodti';O tl. wh ich is the place to which the Samaritan in Jesus' parable takes the wounded lnwclcr ( 10:34).? So. Lhc argum e nt r u ns. }utltllyma is n ot an inn. b uL the g u est room o f the h ouse (Lh c meaning of the word in 22:11). On this interpretation. Mary ;m d J o seph were not being left outside in the cold, but given bo th privacy and warmth in the a n imals' q uarters. because th ere was no sp ace in the guest room.! We arc therefore to read this episode not a.s in dic:ning che suflCring and rejection thatjcsu.s' family e n d u red, but as a sign o f how well thC)' were reccin":d. So established h ;l."i lhis view becom e that an Oxford theologian fCIL able Lo say recen tly. and dismissi\'el)', on a British n1dio p rogr.tm that "no room at the inn" is a "Victoria n myth." In facl, it is a good deal o lder th~m the reign The reJated \'CI'b llllllllyO means litcrall}' · unhar-nt'S.i t he pack animals." and he-nce "lodge:" or "fi nd lodging" (as in Luke 9:l2 an d 19:7). In this chaplet' ~l ll biblical t ranslations are mine u nlt'S$ otherwise noted. ? Richard A. Horsier. T/u l.ibrmlicm t>JC.hri.•lmm: ·n,Ybif<mry Narmthv~ it~ SiKilll Ccmto:l (~ew York: Continuum. 1989~ reprint. Eugene. OR: Wipf & Stod:. 2006). 104. ~ Joel B. Green, 17., G()tfx'l (If i.rlk<' (~ I CNT; Gt':-tnd Rapids: Ec:rdma n~. l997j, 12S-29. 1

68

Nidwftu· Ki11g, SJ.

of Quc~n Victo r ia. si nee the Vulgate tran slates 1he Gn~c k e xpression m tO kala ~wnati with the Latin ph rase ;, diversorio {~ i n the in n,.). The time h as pc rhap.o; come to ta ke a nothe1· look at 1he lr.m.slal ion a n d significa n ce o f the p h rase.' 4

In Defense of the Traditional View

.

On the o n e other occasion \\'h en Luke uses I he word katttll'lllil . (22: I I). it clearlv m eans s.om c h'hcrc to d in e r ·th c kawlymll where I a m to cat 1h e Passover with my d isciples"). The place is fu r the r d escr ib ed {22: 12) as auagaion 'mega ~Jt riimnum. wh ich is p robably best u nd c.•rstood as ··a b ig upstajr:s mom , ready fu rnished." Howe\'er. wh e n the word a ppears in the Scptuagin l. it is occasio n allr quite dea r l}' a lodgin g o r inn {Exod 4 :24: cf. I Molcc 3 :45). In J c r 14:8 it is a restingplace of som e k in d : at I Sam 1: IS it is a g u est r oom: a n d in Jcr 2 5:38 ( I.XX 32:38) it is a n :tnimal•s lair. So lw talymll is a r ather n~rsati lc term. a n d .. inn" seem s a pe-rfectly sen sible I r.tn slation as a first attem p t in Lu ke 2:7. T h ere is :• fu nher question: is th is .. revisio n ist approac h ,. a n appropriate wa y to u n d erstand I h e text? It seem s to me th:n it shows a lack o f .sensit ivity to what Luke is doing h ere. and I propose to argue fi r st for an a pproach based on the h isto r y of intcrprclat ion- that this i.s in fac t how the- com munity at wh ich Lu ke's infanq n arrative i.s aim ed h as. d o'''n the centur ies. read this p hrase: and second . fOr a placing o f this Greek phr ase in the ,.,.-id c-r context of Luke-Acts as a whole. a n d what Luke is tq •ing 10 do (fo llowing the- :tpproach o f re-d action c riticism , if )UU will). My first point docs not n eed much defend ing . I cannot find a n y e,·idc-ncc for the rc-\•isio nist reading(= wgu cst room") u ntil rda ti n~l }' rece-ntly. The second is a m ore interesting point, and I sho u ld like to spend th e rest of this essay -arguing thai l ..ukc use.s c h a pters I a n d 2 o fLu kc-ACl.o; mther :ts a composer , ,·ill usc an overture, to p la y them e...; that will appear l ~l tc r. so that they a re already to som e extent in t he h earer's head. O n e of these themes in the present case i.s Lu ke's ,·ic''' th at God's Messiah. a nd h is C\'Cntual fo llowers. encoun ter many obstacles and diffi culties (Acts 14:22). but that because Ihe Ho i)' Sp ir it i.s d r i\'· ing the n arrative , C\'crything will in the e-nd be well. This phrase. then . o e~k i n autoi.r topos tm u; ktllafymtrli (~there was no room for chem in the in n"). fit.s precisely into that Lu kan theme: a n d we remembe r Lhc two evildoers who were crucified with J c.o;us, h ow one of them defend ed J esus against the other (23:41). using precisely a cognate oft he word tqpos: .. he h a.s done n ol hing 111opo11 (out of 1

}'or discus.iion of this phrase, see ·IOS<'"ph A . Fitzmyer, '/'I t" G o J/J'I orwmli11g 111 Lrdu I- IX (Anchor Bible 28; Nc\\· York: Doub ed:-ay. 1980). 408; EugC'ne L..nVerdierc. MNo Room lOr

Thr::m in the Inn," Jo.'nuornmut91 (19S::t) 552- 57: A:J. Kerr. ,.. No Room in the Katahmm.' " Jo.'.tjJoJilory Timn. )OJ (1991- 9'!) I5- I6:J.W. OIIC'y. ·God on the Mm·c- A further l.ook at l..'m trlmtm in Luke," E"·fuu ilflt')' 'J'i .ruJ )OJ ( 1991- 92) j 00- :)0): R:l}'lltond E. Urown. T/u Bhtlt I1J rltr /1/l',q itr/J, rev. cdn ( ~'r."\\' York: n oubkd:-ay. 1993). 399-401. 670-7 I.

The Signifi~mlfL of tli t! lmr place)."' So what our phra.o;c implies is th:nJesu s a n d his parents a re power less in contrast to th e a p p a rc lll ly cfforlless p owe1· of Augustus. and Quirin ius. In Luke 2:7 the gospel '"riu:r is suggesting that God :d,,·ays su n n o LmLo; the obstacles p ul in place by h uman be i n~rs: a nd t he- h earer m ar a lready know. or will do by the e n d or the two·vohu ne wo rk. that the g ospel abou t jesu s will e \'t::lltuall)' fin d it.s way to Ro m e. o r a u p laces.. Luke'ssC"cond \'Oiume concludes by n arrating h ow the gospel reach es Ro m e in the pe rson of Paul. :tppare ntly in c usto d )': and the wry l:tst word of the whole j our ncr will be aMI')•Ifu ("in an unhindered war"): - Paul rcmainC"d two whole )'t!an> :tl h is own e xpe nse: a nd h e ofre red hospitalitr 10 a ll those who made th eir way to him. proclaim ing the k i n~'"(lom of God . a n d teach ing :til about the Lo rd J e.o;us C hrisl. with utter opcnnes..<;, unhin dered " {Acts 28:30- 31). It fs of a p iece with this. to be- sure. th
A Charm ing Picture of God's Action The fir.s l way to sec th is is b)' obscr\'ing Luke's a bility to paint a b eguiling p icture: there are St:\'Cr.ll ex :\1nple."' o f this lllroughout l.ukc-Acts. It is. n o accident. but a matter of fact in the h istory of inte rpretation. that n o biblical :tul ho r has inspired m o re p:lintin gs lh:m Lu ke , and that legend ofte n gi\'c s him I h e status of an isL" He h as a n aston ishin g girl ror d epicting a scen e. One o r his most often ·paintcd scenC"s in Luke 's infancy narrative is th~ Annunciation to Mary.,; h is a captivati ng scene. with Luke's c haracteristically d eft b r ush strokes: for o ur p u rposes. th~ poin t to note is 1he su bdued presence of God from the very beginning. in t he- d i, ,ine p as..o;ivc "in the sixth month. the an~'l"l G:tbrid was See ian Boxall's chapter in tht• presc"nt \'Ohunc. ~well as Heidi J. Hornik and Mikea) C. Parson$, /1/~onhurtit~g L.1•kt: '17u: hifmu)' Ntrrruthv in /tt(litm {(f'lllli:rt.(UJU J~illli11J: (Harrisburg. PA: Trinity Pn."M International, 2003). csp. 14 -2:S. r. S«, for imtance, John Drurr. J>ttintilrg lhf' mml~ Oni.dian Pirtmr J rmd tlrnr MNmit~~ {~ew Ha'"n, CT: Yale Unin •rsitr Pre-s.s.. 1999). 40- :>9. on annunciation j)aintiugs hy Ouccio. Filippo Lippi. and Poussin. ~

;o

Nidwftu· Ki11g, SJ.

sent" ( 1:26).1\o n eed to as k who d id the sen ding- b u t G od is not named h ere. C haracteristicall)', the person to whom Gab r iel is sent is m emio n ed last in the sente nce. a fte r Galil<:c (which is itself p e rha ps a mo ng the least sign ifi cant p ortions of Ro m e's e mpire), Nar.arcth (:tn u tter ly unim portant hill to wn, as we m:ty recall from Nathanael's d ismissive comme nt in J ohn I:4 6). a nd Joseph (whose o nly a pparent significance is t h at h e is ·of t he h ouse of O:;wid '"). Moreover. Mary's name is only nlcntioncd a fte r Luke has recorded h er status as :t ""virg in."' and a betrothed \'irgi n was rardr of high social sl.'\tus in fi rst-ccnllu·y Palcsti n c. Despite th is implied d o wn gnu:ling of Mary. it is n cvcnhcless to her t h ou 1h e asto n ishing two -wo rd addre.ss is u ttered. duu'n kt't~llllrikim~ni. which you can lnmslate -rejoice. favored ladr." o r in mo re ca.sual mode. "c h eer up. you lucky thing... o r in traditio nal Catholic diction . "hail. full of g race .. ( Luke ) :28). The fi rst of these two Greek word s is a regular form of g reeting in t he ;mcicnl world. bu t its root m ean ing is -rej o ice," and it is wo r th nm ing t h at Luke i.s ''ery muc h the gospel or"jor" (dwrn). whic h in Luke-Act.s is a sig n oft he p r esence of the HolrSpirit (Luke 10:21:Acts 13:52). L ike wise. in o u rinfanC)' narrat ivc. the shephe rds. t he mselves rcpre.scrllat i,·es of th e ma rgin:\lizcd . a rc told that th e good ne ws that they arc h earing i.s "great joy" (2:8. a nd comp a re the outbreak ofjoy offered to Zechariah at J: 14). The second Greek wo rd in the angd•s greet ing is co nnected with t he no un durri.J, which m eans "di"inc favor." ··gr.tce... ~unco ndi ti onal girt... ~g raci ous· ncs.o;,.'' "atlmcti\'Cness." a n d takes on imme n se theological weight in t he '''l"it· ingsof P:u•f. lt even .sounds a bit like the words fOr "joy" and "rejo ice ." and is prob ably cognate ,,,.ith the m. Certain ly the Greek asso nance adds to the effcCL o n u.s. the h carcn; of the story. a..o; we imagine oursci\'CS in lhC' place of Ma ry. who is the hearer in th e narrati\'e. The a ngel n ow amplifies Lhis statement :'IS he co n tinues (1:30), '')'ou have foun d r.haris'''ith God ... o ffering Lhis a.s a reason for her not to be afr.tid . And. inte resting ly. the onl)' o1 hc r use o f this word in the infanq narrati,·c rdCrs to .Jcsu s. "the gmce o r God was on Ute Lliulc c h ild )" (2 :40. cf. 2 :52). This is the ch ild fon,·hom t here '"as no p lace in the katalyma.

A Picture Painted by Contrasts Anothe r wa}' in whic h this a rtistic a uthor ope rates is by contrast. T h e mo st eye-catchin g e xample" in the infanq n a n·ati\'e is t hat between Zechariah a nd Mary. or rath e r b t•twccn the story of the annunci;Hion a nd b irth ofJohn l hc Bap tist a nd t h at of.Je.sus.' I n bo th cases. God•s inesca p able purpose...; arc fu l· fill ed by devout a nd o bedicnl huma n b eings (though Zechariah gets punished ' 5« the chart in Brendan Byrne;. 'f'J1" HOJpi~t~li~,·tifC..,tl: A RnutinJ.t<.?fi.Jtlu::-rGt>JfMI(Collegf:r ilk : Lit urgk~t11•ress,

2000). 20.

The Signifi~mlfL of tli t! lmr

71

for deman ding e\'ide n c:e. 1: 18, 20), a nd in both cases Luke painL-" a n unfo rgcHotble p icture of lhe angel Gabriel announcin g '''hat God•s purp oses a rc. 5 Lrikingly. though , it is Zechariah. not Mary. who seem_.. the more important figure wh e n l.ukc'.s hearers first mee t thc m.11 Zech :•riah i.s gi"cn an a nce.st ry. as is h is " 'ife. and a status ('"a p riest " 1:5). whereas Mary. as we h ave seen . is no more than "a virgin." Zech:•riah is doing his priestly job ( I:8 - 9). and -the people" (;tvcry imponanL e nLity for Lu ke) are "prayi ng outside at the ho ur o r s:o•cr ifke,. ( I: 10). N<:n:rthclc.ss. it is M:try who is of more i nu~rcst to Luke. and wh ile Zechariah's son will be -great before the Lo rd .. . and fill ed with Lhe Holy Spi ril. .. ;md will return many o f lhc sons of Is rael lo Lhe Lo rd their God . . . lo m ake read y a people p repared for the Lord,. {I:) 5- 17). Mary's .son, by conlrasL. "will be g r~H and "'ill be called Son o f the Mo.o;t l-ligh . .. a n d he will rule over the ho use of Da\'id fur C\'cr" ( 1:32-33). The contrast is dcflly p ainlcd. and the mes.o;agc u nmistaka ble: God is at wo rk. and in precisely the way we should nm c xp<:cl. Mosl h e-arers in the a ncient wo rld would ha\'c e xpected Zech:Hiah and his offspring to bc- the sign ificant p tarcrs in th is conl rasl of o pposites. The samc- is t1·u e of two o the r contrasting p ain> who m Lu ke allow_.. u s to g limpse in the infanC)' ma rr.tl i n~ . He .star L" the infanq slory propt'r with a reti::rcncc to 1-le rod: ~ in the days of 1-Jc ro d King ofj ud ea."" <md im m ediately p roceeds to -"peak. not o f Herod . hlll o f -a ccrlain priest, Zechariah b)' mtmc .. {1:5). It is this Zechar iah. not I he p:mmoid and homicid a l 1-le rod lhe Creal. whom Lu ke wishes to present as -"ignifka n t to his hearers. A further su ch contrast we have a lready h inted -al. Lo o k ;tt the solemn opening of c h apter 2: "h happ e n ed in those clap that a decree we m out from Caesar August us for the whole world to be enrolled . . . wh e n Q u iri n iu.s wa_.. governor o f Syria" (2: 1- 2). Most of t he hearers of t he Gospel would h ave been in no d oubl that Luke is doing serio us h istory here. O n ce again. howel'cr. the con trast i.s wilh t he apparently ullcrlr insig n ificant ~J oseph from Galilee . .. with Mary h i.s fi:w cCe- who \\'as pregnan t"' (2:4 - 5). a nd it is this irn:gu lar couple in wh om Luke is inlc restcd. For a simila r exa m ple of a n unexpected I ric k p layed o n us by Luke. l>CC Lhe list o f dis reputa b le potcnl:\les in 3:1-2. :tn d the n contemp late to whom •the word of God c:m1e ...

On the Way So t he important people in Lu ke's narrati\'c are not nt;ce..o;sarily lhc most obviou s o n es. b ul t hose who fi nd no p lace in the }U11alyma. This fi t_.. well with 11

Urucc: .f. Malina and JC"rome !·1. Ncrrer. "Honor and Sh:unC" in Luke-Acts: Pi,·otal Values of the Mcdilerran t'
Nidwftu· Ki11g, SJ. a nother very sig n ifican t, ~m d ofte n n eglected. d e m e nt of Lu ke 's story. It is 1he fact I h at the whole o f Luke-AcLo; is a j o urn ey. f ro m Galilee (to Jerusalem a nd back). throug h Sama r ia a n d Judea, to J e rusalem (several lintt$). a n d e \'entu· a lly to -the e n ds of the earth" (Acts I :S). which presumably w e reach in Athe ns (Act....; 17) and Rome (Acts 28}.9 This g ives the whole sto ry a provisio nal fed. signaled in an unob1rusive b ut (once rou ha\'c seen it) u nmistakable way b)' Luke. th rough h i...; use of the Greek verb port>uomni. This "'md . ,,·h ich ofte n m ean s .something stro n ger than "go," c:'ln b e lra nsl;tted as *proceed," "m arch," ·go o n e's way." - live." *con duct o n eself." o r ·walk ." h is fairly r.lrc in MaLLhcw and john . and n ot fo und at a ll in Mark, o the r than the *lo ng e n d ing'' o f that Gospel. Luke. hO\\-'CVC":r. uses it a n d iL.; co mpoun d...; ("go with." "go into ." "go o ut of,.) lOS times in his two vo lumes. and this i..o; surc1r n o accident. It is Lu ke'...; view 1h at the word of God is on a journer. and therefo re has not )'d come ..o;afdy into h arbor: but it will achie ve its d estination d espite all t he o bstacles th at the oppone nts of God m ~ty p lace in its way. Lo ok at. the ways in \Yhich Luke deploys 1h e word in t he infan cy n ;tr rati,·e. Al 1:6 il e\'okcs a Hebrew b ackgroun d . whe n Luke u ses it to describe Zechariah and Elizabeth as - b ol h j ust before t he Lo rd, a n d liJ(l/hi·11g b1amcle.o;sly in a ll the commandme nts a nd d ec ret$ o f the Lord." He re it cchoe..o; a H ebre w ,·crb (hiilak) which means *walk" o r "co n duct o ne's life" (cf. Gen 17:1). The n ex t use o f the word o cc u r.s after Mary has alre::td y in dicated ( Luke I :38) that .she to o will wa lk in th e Lo rd 's '"""'>'· ~ow she puts it startlingl)' im o practice: · ~tary arose in tho se d ays and jottmrytrd with haste in to th e h ill co untry" ( 1:39). She h ns not been co mmanded to d o so. but the h eare r is in no d oub t that sh e is doing exactly what sh e s hou ld be d o ing. The n ext tim e we e nco unter I h e \\·ord is in 2:3- 4, when it describe..; 1h e gene ral effect o f C~tt~sar Aug ustus' dea·ee (-everron e we nt to be enro lled,.). Inte resting ly. and pe rhaps . o;ignifica ntl)'. Luke amids reach ing for this favored verb when h e describes the movem e nt o f the sh e phe rds from their fields to Beth le he m. Instead . we hear the m ..<; embarked .

fl

De nnis M. Swrt"tland. OllrJmrmf'.Y ruiiiiJr.ur.f: Di.f ripi a /u'f, rJr.rllrditlg ~n /.llk,..;\ ~u (Good Nt':\,., Studks 23: Collegeville: Liturgical l' rt"5.1. 1990). For this the me in the Third GospeL St"e Da\·id P. ~ I O<".SSJ'\c r. / .Qrr/ of thr l kmqud: -rtu: J.it<'rnry <wd Thr.olugiral Signf{imttu tif lh<' t •llur,. 'Jirnv/ Nmnrtif!t' (Minneapolis: Forlres..;, 1989); Charles H.H. Scobie. *A Canonical Apllroach to lntcrpr<:ting Luke: The J ournt')' Motif as a Hermeneutical Key," in ltN:rdhtg totlu: ! ut<'•tm-:l tllimt. H<'jlnti<m, FunntJiimt. t'tl. Craig G. Bartholomew, Jot'! B. Gr« n, a nd Amhonr C. This.ehon (Grand Rapids: Zondcn·an: Milton Keynt"s: l'aternosicr. 2005). 327- 49.

The Signifi~mlfL of tli t! lmr

73

IL is worth noting in this co nu:xt, t ho ug h space docs not p c nnit us to cxam i n~ the matter in greater depth. that th ~ Gospd•s action shifts scene no lc!ts than n ine time.s in the first two c h a pte rs of Luke,.so that h)' •he time the hc:tre r get.o; to chapter 3 . we arc a lready ;n\'":trc (at some level) 1h:H th is is very much a •jou r· n cying ." p r<wisional Gospel. This is the context in " 'h idl we arc to u nderstand the koJrt,wut. in wh ich the re was no place fO r t he infant S:lvio r.

Filling a nd Fulfilling The re is anothe r technique t h at Luke e mploys to ind icate that God i.s ~at work, a nd it is o ur contention that the kol«~}'lntt i.s a p an of his o ver:trch ing intention. It is h i.s us.c oft he idea of rulfillment. Luke o pens his ::1ccount. even before the infan9 narrative is properlr underway. b)' describing it a..o; ··a narrative o r the things th:H h a\'C been fulfi lled :unong us" ( l: l).ln case we h ad a ny doubt that he wishes to impl)' that it is God who is a t work h e re h e tells T hcophilu.s, 1he :addressee of bo th vo lumes. of h is a im: .. th:ll you shou ld know t h~ inrallib ility of the words (or 'things'} regard ing which you h ave been catech ized" { 1:4). l.uk~ has a n umber o f lactic..; that ser ve h is overall . o;Lr.tleb'1' of fulfillment, the sen se of God being in charge. The re a re three verbs in p a rticular. plinJO. pliirojJJwrtii (I: 1). and pimpli:mi. which all have the meaning of .. fill "' or .. fulfi ll." So Gabriel te lls Zechariah !h at h is son - will h e fi lled \\'ith tJ1e Holr Spirit rrom h is mothea·'s wo m b" {1: 15): and indeed that same mol he r. we kam at 1:4 1, is •filled with the Holy Spirit.u T he word can also mean .. fulfilled." as at 1:23, where ~t he dars of !'Zechariah's] liturgy were fu lfilled "' is the on ly pos.o;ibJe tr.m.slation. or - Elizabeth 's time to giw birth was rulfilled .. {1:57), O T Mar)''$ ·da}'S were fu lfill ed for her to g in ! birth"' (2:6). or J esus· -eight days were fu l· fill ed for h im to b e circumci..o;ed. and he w·.t.s catlcd by th e name 'Je..o;us' whic h he had been called by the a ngel be fore he h ad been concei,·ed in the womb" {2 :21). E\'c ry si n~o1c p hrase in that \'c rsc m ight be said lo scr\'C Luke's stnllcgy of indicating that God is in ch:trgc. J.lm1ll)'. w~ n ot ice Luke•s language: .. ,,,hen the days of their p urificat ion wc1·c fulfilled " in 2:23, a nd in 2 :40 how .Jesus was •filled with wisd om." And the re arc o ther pointers here. Loo k . fO r example. at t hC" noun /t!/eiOsis. a word from a d ifferent root. b ut still hard to transi:He other tha n as .. fu lfill· ane nt." in 1:45, the \ 'Crb telt!O {-complete"") in 2 :39. anoth e r ,·e rb lt!leio6 (also -com p lete") in 2:43. a nd the related n oun tdo.\· (-end") u sed in 1:33 ("'of his kingdom t here sh all be no e nd"). All of these rein force the sen.sc that God is in charge, o vea·coming every obstacle in the comple tion or the d i,·ine project. The re is also Luke 's use or the two Greek te rms fo r ~word," rhi:uw and logos. Notice, for example. Ma ry 's response to Gabriel. ~ l et it happcn to m e accord· ing to your rhi:md" { 1:38), a nd compare Luke's usc of~a..o; h e said/ spoke" in I:55. 70 . Similal'l}'· there is t he apparcnl ly m ysLe r ious ·sign" to the shephe rds {2 :1 2),

74

Nidwftu· Ki11g, SJ.

whose o n ly function is to get fu lfi lled (t ho ug h no *fu lfilhnC"nt" wo rd occurs h e re::), in the wrapping ofJ esus in swathing bands aL 2:7, and Lhc p lacing in a m<mgcr at 2:16. Once again the heare r. a lmost unconsciousl}', gathers Lh:'ll everyth ing will happen as God has o rdained . There is. in consequence. a sense at c \'c ry p o int in the infa nC}' narrative t hat whcrcn :r you touch it, the s tory is govern ed by God. Somethin g o f t he sort is C\'idcnt in 2 :25-26, wit h Simeon's protni!ic frmn the 1-Joly Spirit. and in 2 :49. where Luke p lact;s on j esus• tip s the apparcntlr insig n ificant Greek wo rd dei (''it is necessary"'). ,,,.h ic h is in LukcAcLS o n e oft he indic..·uors that th c- divine p l:m is unst.opp ahl}' at wo r k-for a striking examp le, see t he story of t he road 10 Emmau s {24:26).w

A Subtle Use of Indicators of Time So Luke h as multiple way:s o f !cuing his hearers kno w th ai God i.s al wo rk: a n d this helps w fill o ut th e backg ro und aga insl '"hidl kattti;l'llltt has been tra· d itio nnlly understoo d as "inn." We may m e nt ion j u st o n e la.st characlCristic brush stroke. Luke's sub1lc c m plo}'tne nt of in d icators of t ime. h was notable in the pre\'io us section how often *fulfill"' and ~days" came toge the r in the same sente nce- he re Luke i.s o ffe ring us a due that w e a re n ot sim ply talk ing of COil\'C:'Ilicnl c h ronological ide ntifie rs. but of God's lime. The u.sc o f the word ~d ;\}'" is one su ch in d ication: ~ i n I h e d ays of Herod the King,. ( 1:5) is followed ve ry dos.cly by a d escrip tion of Zcch:uinh and Elizabeth as "achs usc of-m o nth."' in p a r ticu lar to d raw together the d osel)' lin ked stories o f E liz.:tbcth-:Jo hn a nd Ma ry-Jesus: "in lhe sixth month" (1 :26). wth is is the sixt h m o n t h for h e r who was called b ancn" ( 1:36). a n d "Mary stayed '''ith her :tbo ut lh rcc months" {1:56). p resumably ta k· ing I he story to the momc nt o f John'.s birth. We might add to this Luke's u sc of- year•• ( in 2:36. 3 7). After we ha\'e team ed that Anna (like E li:t.abeth and Zt•ch ar iah) is ~ad\'anccd in m a n y cla p;." Luke adds a detail whose precise sig n ificance is obscure. u n les.o; we arc m eant to unde rsL;ttHJ 1h al God is at work h e re. d cl:o1ying the mome nt of this adtnira blc lady•s ddigh t ("sh e h ad lived wit h her h usb a n d for sc \·e n year s from h e r virg in· ity. a n d she was a widow until cigluy-four rears" (Z:36-37). Th i.s is t he n fo l· lowed, ~1 f m ost immediately. br the appc:tran cc of lh c sa me word to e mphasize •• Byrnl" (Nr,~Jiiflllitv. 37) obsc:n·cs t hai in 2:49.Jc:,us' ruturt" i.s -determ ined bra d i\'ine in~>er· ali ,·~, expressed here ror the firsl Lim<" by the characteristic l.uka n ·must• (Greek: dri).

The Signifi~mlfL of tli t! lmr

75

tile J e wish p ie ty of ?\tary and J osep h : '' h is paren ts would j ourney e ve r r year to J e rusalem for the feast o f the Passm·e r .. (2 :4 1). Fin :,lly, the occurre nce o f -years.. in the ,·er}' next n :rse indicates, presumably, that J esu s had re::1ched the right age to make t he pilg rimage. T h ere is another word in Greek that can b e tra n slated as -right tim e" or -win d ow of opportuniLr." The word is lutiros. and Lu ke uses it of I he fu lfillm ent of Gabriel's wo rds to Zechar iah (1:2 0)~ a nd h e uses it ag".tin, th is time replete w·it h menace a nd meaning. at the e n d of the templation ofJcsus. ,,,.hen "the d e vil left him u ntil the kairw" (4:13). Greek has a second word for time. however. chrouos. o r ~clock-lim e," as it is o flcn understood : a nd Lu ke m anages to invest even Lhis word with divine purpose whe n "the tim e was fulfilled "' for ElizabcLh to p ro duce he1· son ( 1:57). Last. Lhe re is Luke's u sc of Lhe word "to day." It a p pear s on ly once in the infs brush to gi,•e a co ntext against whidl h is Gospel. both \'Oiumcs of it, is to be henrd a nd u n d en>tood a nd 1ra n slated .11 Thou contexl is God's inescapable p u rpose. wh ich comes up against refraciOI')' h um~m i ty a nd othe r obstacles. but. in t he end , according to Lu ke, '''ill fi n d its m:tr k.

Conclusion: What Luke Is Trying to Do Luke's end eavor is . wi1 h del icate sh ades of h is palette. to express what God is doing in .Jesus. The infancy n arrative end s. sig n ificantJy e nough. with this sentence: -And .Jesus w:\s growin g in wisdom and age/ size b efore God a nd before h uman bcinbrs" (2 :52). This sente nce is c h aracteristic of the entire in fa ncy n ar rali\'e: God is the centra l c h aracter. but you wou ld n ot know I hal
II For an up-to--dale: re ndt•ring oft he Nt:\\' Tes1ament. sec Nicholas King. J·i n hiJ 'lhnul«tnl {StO\\'Ill
Tlu .\ '<-If' 'liwtmiJI'rlt,

i6

Nidwftu· Ki 11g, SJ.

n ar r.tti,·c, and . in conseque n ce. the whole': wo rk to whic h t hese c h a p te rs arc the o verture: Z:19[after the ,·i.sit o rthe.sheph el·ds in 1\cthlc hc m j: .. Mary \\";tS watc h ing (syuditl'l) a ll th ese things/wo rds. comparing t he m in h erhC":uL" 2:51 [llftcr t he painf u l r ediscove ry orjt;su.s in J crusal<:m]: .. His mothe r was watching (di~lirt~i) all the word s/ th ings in h e r h eart."

So those o r us who \\·ou ld presume to l.r.tn slatc o r intc rp rcl the text have to im itate Mary he r e, who m Lu ke is cc r tain lr ofre ring as a model pe rro rme r of this myste ry. Vv'c ha\'t: far m o re to do th a n m e rely thumb through the latest comple te lexicon o f the Greek la ng u age or consu lt comme ntnrics. What we a rc im•itcd lo d o is to d e velop a se n sitivity to what 1he author thinks he or s hC" is doing . nnd. implicill)'· an acco unta b ilit)' to the aud ie nce ro r whom th e a u thor suppo ses h im self t.o be writing . Theophilus m a)' h ave a rc w questio ns to put to us al l h e e nd o f t hC" p C"rformancc.' 1

I!

Mrthanksar<"due to Prort-,son Chris Rowland and 1\l:lrklL~ Uockmuehl. Rent Dr Hden-An n Hart.J~·· a nd Dr P'at rici.a McDonald ror taking the trouble to read this c:s!iar and offering ~omc \'el'}' helJ>rul comments a nd insights.

Chapter 6

Matthew 1- 2 and Roman Political Power \ ,Varrcn Caner

For many conte mporary h earers. th e story o f J esus' b irth has n o thing to do with politics. )f the sto r y is heard at a ll in the conte xt of the contcmporal)' west· ern Chr istmas-often d r iven b)' consumerism. m a rked br scntimcntnlit)'· s.ecu· l ~lriz.cd by it.s own cast of ch:•racter.s. and focusc."ti o n families a nd fCasti ng - 1he story of the b irth of a cute b a br prov-id es at most a religious tinge for domes Iic cclch rations. with hardly a pe rspective on political st ruclUn:s and agenda .I Ye t at least three o b scrvation:'t indicate that Roman imperial power plays a cen tral ro le in Matthew's narratin :. T h e fi rst factor con cerns the Gospel's slor}'linc. The account of J esus• birth. or mo re :tccurately. the account of his conception (Mall 1:18-25). sets in motion lhe Gospel's piOl tha t will c ulminate in the story's main char.-tclcr being put to dc;u h on a Rom:m cross .'~ The Gospel's open ing chapte rs explicitly a nticipate .Jesus' deal h br using language that '"ill reappear pro minc nl.l)' in 1he crucifixion stor)'· For exampl<:. the mag i inquire a b out the one born .. k ing of the J e,,•s" (2:2), the same p hrase that t he governor Pilate uses in quc:stioning.Jesus (27: I 1) . ~ The ..chief p riests a nd scrilx-s," who now advise Herod (2:4), la te r instigate J esus' dc:tth with their ally Pilate (26:3. 57 ). The verb 1h at desigmues the ir ..assembling" to advise He ro d (2:4) identifies the ir later actions rour times in assemblin g to p lan a n d execute Jcsu..o;' death (26:3. 57~ 27:62; 28:12). as wdl as the actions of the Roman soldiers (27:27) and the crowd.; (27:17. 20). The magi ·deceive" or .. mock" Herod b)' not returning t.o him with news about .Jesus' b in hpl:tce. The same verb appears four times as a n act ion done to .JcstL<; a..o; h e is put to d eath (20:19: 27:29. 31. 4 1). In this way. J csu..o;' birth a n d subsequent death br Roman crucifi xion a1·c dosdy linked. To fOllow J esus crucified by Rome is to fOllow one who disturbs a ny political system with 1

James Tracy and Richard Horsley.

C;Arid'lf!tm Vmt~•vtf•p.-tl: Ctm.•·14m,.rbm. Chri.rl. tmd Ct•ll~t,.,.

(Harrisburg: Tr-inil)" Press Internat ional. 2001). ~ \\'arren Carter. Mnlil•.:o..tr SlmJirllu. l11t~•pm..r. f."vmiJ:rli..t, re\·. t"i/aJ,.: p..,,·uait.• 'if tl f(mwtm Gm.,·mw (lnterraccs: Collcgc\·ille: Li t~rgkal Press. 2003): also WPilate and jesus: Roman J ustice All Wa~hcd Up (Matt 27:11- 26). in Warro::n Carter. Mtdllu·u.• tmd I':Nlpirr: l 11i liul E"'f•luml itm~ ( H arri~hurg: Tr inity Press l utt·rualional. 2001). 145- 68.

78

Wr( rn>u Cllrt~r

searchin g questio ns about its vision of societ)', its p e r.so nnc l. a nd 1he imp act or ils p rac tices and polic ie.o;. And second. Ro man imperia l p o '''e r pen >ad cs the world o f J esus' birth. as well as the wo r ld o f th e folks fo r whom Matthe w•s Gospd '""'-'S wril Le n, nearly a h undred yean>late r around 90 C£.• Ro m an po we r secured t he e m p ire's hie ra rch ical social struch1re and m:tintaincd elile status. wealth. and p owe r in ,·ario us w:o1ys. Leading pe rsonnel like go ve rno r s. based in prO\•i ncia l c i1 ies, rule d provinces and made alliances wil h local urba n clile.s. Ro m a n conLro l and presence we re m:mifC"stcd throu gh buildings. statues, images on co ins. and fcslival.s. The ruling classes garnered wealth. resm •rcC"s, a nd prod uction from lhe rest o f lhc population throug h taxe.o;, u ib utcs, rent.s. loans. a nd slan !r y. Rhetoric a nd justice asserted clilc values and control. Pr<wincial elites expressed their own complian ce a n d fOste red the allegia nce o f no n -elites through loca l impe r ial c u lt obscn -ances lhal provided numero us opp o •·Lunitics for most to p a rticip ate. Relig ion and po lit ics we r e n ot sep;nab lc e ntities. Roman impe r ial theolo-g y e m phasized lhe g ods' choice of Rome. The gods had commissio ned Rome as the ir agen t to m a n ifest the d ivin e will, p u r p o ses. a n d b lessings. Rom;m rule the re by e njoyed divine sanct ion. And n aturally it was e xpressed in military po we r. L..cgio ns. in clud ing locally recruited troops. maintained o rder. e nforced compliance. <m d dete1-rcd J'c volt. \~/ hi l e Rome d id no l targel fo llowe rs o f.Jesus with e mpire-wide persecution, harsh socioecono mic realities made d ::1il)' life d if ficu lt and preca rious fo r most people:. This is the eve ryday world 1h at pervad es MattJ1ew's story and is the world addressed by the Gospel, pe rhaps writle n in Antio ch. the capil.'ll cily of I he pro,'ince o f Syria. around 90 C[ . Third . t he Gospel te lls t h is .story o f.Jesus at a Lime soon afte r a fresh asse rt ion o f Rm n a n po we r. Bet ween 66 a nd 70 CE. som e Judeans and Cali le;m s r e mHcd against Roma n rule. only to be m e r cilessly crushed in 70 CE as J e rusale m was burned and the te m ple d estroyed . The lo ss o r city. te mple. a nd p riesthood m ean t not only the task of sig n ific mt refOrmulatio n fo r post-70 J u d aism. b ut a lso a f1·esh aware n ess in J e wish communities throug hout th e empire. a nd especially in n earby r egio n s su c h as Syr ia. of t he challe ng ing task of n ego· tiating Ro m a n po we r. Mau he w·s Gospel. with th e slorr of its m:o1in c h a r.t.cte r crucified b)' Ro me, pa r ticip:llcs in th ai L;\sk of 1u :g o Liation as it seeks to g uide follo we rs ofJesus in t heir daily li\'es within the Roma n Empire. These t h ree o bser\'a tions indicate that twc nly-firsL.ccntury read cr:s of Matthe w•s story ofJ csus' orig ins wo u ld do wdl to be attun ed to th e impe rial realities Lhat Matth e w's Gospel assumes b ut that are not often evid e nt to us. I h'ill make de::n som e o f the-se imp erial realil ies in the follo wing d isc u s.o;io n .

1

W;urcn Carter. Mt~Uitf'W tmd t/lt'- ,\fargi,u : A Soriq.J-Iolitkt~l "''d h'digi!)•a ltovrdh•g ( ~b ryknoll: O rbis; Sheffleld: Shd Ticld Academic Press. 2000). 1-49: Caner. M utthno•<md Empbr. 9 - 5..1;

John Riches a nd Dm·id C. Sim (eds). Tlu ( ;mp.-1 0)/ Mt~ Uiuw ,., US~T Suppk ment 276~ London: T&T Clark. 2005).

it~ ltomm t l»ofx'rial c~ml.t:xt

Matl)uw 1-2 mul fiomtm Poli/.iwl Pmw-r

79

I will argue thal Mallhe w's story ofJ esu s• origins guid es fO IIowC"r.s of.Jesus b)' re\'C"aling the Ro m a n Empire to be at odd s with the divine p u rposes yetsu~ec t l.o 1he m JOr the tjme being . J csu.s• fo llowers a re to manifCst God 's .s<wing p lan at work in the midst of lhe empire. Matthe w o ffe rs these fO llowers reassu r a nce and g uidance for living in lhc dangerous empire untjl God's purposes arc enacted to end Roman power.

T he Genealogy (Matt 1:1- 17) It was c ustomary in Matthew's world to d d ine an elite h ero by associat ing h im with p restigio us and \'irtuous (usually m:lle) ancesto rs wh o Jm d wcallh, p owe1·. and status. For examp le. in h is b iogr:lphy of his fat h e r-in -law Ag r ico la, governor of Britain. Tacitus o utlines the elite status a n d po we r o f Agricol:•'s two grand fat hers. h is fa ther. a nd his mothe r (Agria~/a4).5 Whilcsom(: of the anccs· tors named in Jesus' genealogy a rc p ro m inent and virtuous figures with power. wealth. a nd status- Abra h :tm , David. So lo m on. and o the r kings- many lack these features. Oa,rid is h ardly a paragon of \'"irt uc in all respects. Neithe r we re the kings Re h oboam, Abijah. Jor.un . Ah az. and Mam1S$eh ( l:i-10). Ma ny of those m1mcd in verses 12·16 •u·c nob odie.o;. about whom there arc no su n riYing tmdition.s. Matthe w's gcncaiOb")' makes the s.om ewlm l unconventional move of includ ing five women {Tama r. R ~l ha b . Ruth. t he wife o f Ur iah. Ma ry: 1:3- 6 . 16). T h e re h otvc been nu m e ro us suggestions about the contribu tion of these wo men. Certain!}' the re i.s no m e r it in the o ld trad ition, dating from at least J erome in the fi fth century, that the women we re .sin ners: !he men arc hardly sinfree. More h elpful are lhe Gentile co n nections of som e of the women ( Ra h a b, Rut h) along with the recognition o f their scxu:ll roles and .socioecon omic a nd c ultural powcrles.snes.s o ut...o;idc COil\'c n tional mak--dominatcd society in which they acti\'CI)' furthe r God's p u r poses.'; T h ese women. to be su re. also prcpar~:: fo r Mary's role in concciYing a nd birthing .Je.o;us. With iLS som e what unusu al gcn e:tlogy, the Gospel sets J esus' origins within Matthew•s \'ersion of 1he biblical story concerning God's inte ract ions with 1he nations a n d lsr.tel. For Matthew. b asic to these interactions is God•s pro m ise 10 Ab r.th a m to b less a ll the peoples of the earth (Gcn 12:3: 22:18). Abraham is n amed in I he Gospel's first verse a nd jesus is lin ked to him with the id enti· fication of "son o f Abraham."' Abraham st.:m ds at the h cotd of 1hc genealogy. ~ ~ I au rice

1-lutton and William Petrrson. 1fuitru: /)iuloglu. :\g•·it:iiltJ. Gtrrmm•itl (LC L: :-icw York: ~l ar.mill:m. 1914). 17-l-75. r. Carter. Mt1tt/ln•~ amilh.: Murgim. 58- 6 1; Raym ond E. Brown. 'I'll<' Wrt/1 of I hi' Mr.uin/1, rrv. cdn (Nt"\\' York: Douhledav. 1993). 71-7·1, 590-96. ' War ren Carter, ~~lauhean' Christology in Roman Imperial K.::r: ~lattht.\\' l: 1." in '!'11r Gfli/Jrl of Mrtltlu•n' i11 il.• Rm.,rm I ""JMrial Crmf~.\'1, cd. Riches a nd Sim, 143- 65.

so

Wr(rn>u Cllrt~r

casti ng h is sh adow o ver il.s firs t section (M:m 1:2- Ga). He is a lso high lighted in the gcncalogJ's summary (1 :17). Go d 's pro mise to Abraham to b less a ll peo· p ic with a just a nd abundant life pro vides a vision o f life as God in tend s it to be. The ,·i.sion is . fOr exa mple, elabora ted fo r Israel in Deute ronomy 28- 29 in te rms of fc n .ifity. food. p h rsical wholeness. and secu ril)'. T hat ' 'ision of life is. howc\'C'J', c h alle nged br some n amed in t he genealogy. King ly d escen dant.s f rom David . fo r instance. a rc charged with lhc task o f representing God•s j ust a nd good p urposes. But m any of the kings named in 1:6-1) do not liYe out the royal job d esc rip tion ent rusted to D:t''id a n d a rticu lated in royal Psalms such as Psalm 72. Solomon e m p loys ex ploiL'llin:: a nd oppressive m eans to e nhan ce his own ,\·ealth ( I Kgs 1-ll).s His son Rehobo am conl inues the practices ( I Kg s 12- 14). Manas.o;d1 sp ecializes in fa lse ,\·orship and injuslice (2 Kgs 21 :1 - 18). God i nte n~ n cs in 587 BC[ '""ith the defeat o r.Jeru.salcm b}' the B::1byloni::m empire. Reference to exile in Babylo n m a rks the e nd of the gcnealog}''ssccond section and beginning of its third sect ion (1\hu 1: I 1- 12, 17). This t: xilc n ames an c \'e nt in wh ic h Babrton ian impe ri:ll power was as..o;erted ove r Judea a nd J e rusalem, in whic h the city was defeated , and leading citize n s we re rdocatcd l.o Babylo n. The te rm t h ai Mallhew u ses for this ~e xile" (metoikt!si.a) appe~us three times in the Greek tcx l of I h e Hebrew Bible in co ntexts that inte rpret this event theo logically (2 Kg:s 24: 16; I C h r 5 :22: E1.e k 12: 11). T hat is. B~l byl on ian ex ile is seen to play a p:lrt in God 's purposes. namclr the p unishmc nl of kings for fai ling to re p rc.o;cnl d i\'-i ne ju.o;t ice :tn d to lead the people in fa ithful \\'Or.sh ip and sen•ice of God. This p c rspecti\'e inte rprets B-.'tb)•lonian imperialism as an instrume n t o f God 's punitin• p u rposes () Kgs 9:6- 9). But the t rnd it ion also evaluates Babylon '.s emp ir e in a no 1he r war. Subsequ e ntly Godjudges Bah}'lon fo roppre.ssing the dtoscn peop le and end.s its emp ire . God uses the Pcr.si:m r u ler Cyn1s to accomp lish 1his purpose and to set.Judeans free fro m Babylonian r u le . .so as to re turn ho me a fter 539 BCE (lsa 44:21- 28:45:1. l5b). Ve rses 12-1 6 in t he Matthean gcnea l o~n· sho w that B-a bylon d id not h :wc the fina l word. T h e re was life a fte r and beyond the ex ile. This last sectio n in di· cates that no im pe r ial power can thwarl or d i\'crt the d ivine p urp oscs, :u1d n o im perial p ower is stronger than God . Ultimately God on:rcom cs Babylon . Evo king t hese mrious perspectives o n how God u ses Babyloni;m impe rial power ha.s important implications tOr Mauhew's re nd ers und<-·r Roman con· trol. The Babylon ian refere nces create an <malogo us relationship b e tween Babylon and Ro m e. between t he C \~ lltS of 587 l! C[ and o r 70 cr . Matthew seems lo sec the: d isaslrous C\'Cnt.s of 66-70 CE when Ro me overran J e•·usalc m as parallel to the fa ll o fJcru.sale m to Babylon in 587 BCE.Just as God m ade usc of 1\abrlon lo punish j e rusalem in 587 BC E, so God has used Ro m e lo punis h ~ 'Solomon i n All His Glory': l nh::rh"xl ualil)' and 1/u• Sl ou~y uftli<' / 1/f'ttJ Ti::llmf!t•.,i (i..') ( l997j 3- 25.

,; War ren Carter,

Ma ll hew 6:29." jmm1ul for

Matl)uw 1-2 mul fiomtm Poli/.iwl Pmw-r

Sl

J e rusalem in 70 CF... !\'l atthcw makes this pe rsp ect ive explicit in the Go spel. especially when J esus enters J er usalem (2 1: 12- 13. 18- )9, 4 1)." Matthew also ediLo; the p arable o f the ,,·edding fe::1st fro m the t raditions of .Jesus' sayings to include a rdCren ce to .Jerusa lem's d eslrucl ion (22:7 ) and tocondenm the cit)•'s leaders (21 :45: 22:7 ).1' 1The link with Babylon interprets 1he d istlstc r of70 CE in tenns orGod•s p u n itive purposes. But a runher link ex ists between Babylo n in 587 BC E and Ro me in 70 CE. After God h as used Bab)-·lon to p u n ish the peop le wit h e xile. God then jud ges the Babylo n ian e mpire to be ;n odd s with the d ivi ne purposes fo r the wo rld (Jer 5 1:64). God neith er e ndorses 1\ab)'lon. n or san ct io n s it.s war o r tifC, nor bles..o;es it.s way of o rdering lhc world . It i.s contrary to the di,•ine plan fo r the world. So God b r ings the Babylo n ian e mpire to an e nd a nd the people return home. A rurther. h opeful d imens-ion o r t he p ar.dlcl between Bnbylon a nd Ro me emerges. J ust as Babyloni;w power d id not last. neil he r will Ro me's. J ust as God saved the people from Babylon. God will s:we the m fro m Ro me. While imperial po,,·cr at times scr.·es or en acts the di,•ine purposes. u llim:-ttcly it i.s at odds with God's p lan and su~ecl l o God's sa\'ing or liberat ing work. J ust a..o; Babylon wa..'i destroyed . ..'iO will be Ro me. Or to put it in o ther 1e1·ms, God will o u u nusde Ro me's empire to cstabli ~h H is em pire. This is. to be sure. a d angerous message for an im pe1·ial po we r such a.s Rome. Th;tt is wh)' the gen ealogy-an d the Gospel-do not .state it open ly. in the fonn of d irect and open "God will get Ro me"' rhetor ic. Instead 1he message o f Ro me's in evitab le down fa ll is conve)·cd much more con~ rtl}' by using ~ i nsid e r knowledge." 11 That is. these re feren ces to Ba bylon evoke Hebrew Bib le tradi· tions that present a p articular 1heologic:ll perspccti\-c on Bab)'lon. A.s \\l"ith a ll 1he names in the gen ealogy, these tmd it ions are not elaborated b u t rt:lr o n th e read ers' cultur;tl knowledge to elabomtc the crypt ic rc ferc nct~$ . The Gos-pd's audie nce is expecuo,d co know about the B:tb}'lon ian d efeat orJ er usalem a nd exile. as we ll as the end of Babylon ian power a nd return from exile a rtcr 539 BCE (.-ere rred w in Mall 1:11- 12 . 17). The audien ce is also to draw a parallel between Babylon a nd Rome. Sim ilar connections arc made in Olher J ewish texts like 4 EzrA and 2 Baruch, written ab out the sam e time as Mallh ew a nd a lso concern ed to make sense of the t raged }' o r 70 CE. The rep elition or the reJCrenccs lo Babylon in 1:11 -1 2, 17 also draws allention lo their importance. But if 70 C E was about God using Ro me to p unis-h the rulers ;tn d people for the ir sin s. how will God bring ab out the h o pcfltl act o r savitlg the peop le rrom 1he ir s ins and f ro m Rome, the p unisher of those s ins?

• Carter, MaJihnt~ mu/1/JI' Mmgi1u, 418. •• Ibid.. 430-..16. 11 For \•·ays in ,.,..hich the powerless employ sclr·t>rotccli\'c. co\'crt rcsi.st:mc<' to power, sc:e J:mu:s Scott. OomilutiWII tmd tJu ,,,..,,. of IV:si.•ttmu: f/idtlm 1iuJurript.• (NC'\\' H:n"Cn: Yale Unin.-r.sitv Press. 1990).

82

Wr(rn>u Cllrt~r

Being Saved from Sins (Matt 1:18- 25) In 1: 18 - 25 Matth e w n ar rates !he concept ion and commission of the yet unbornJ e.sus to carq•out t h is task of s~wi ng the pcople.11 In a d r e;lm. an angel ann ounces Mary's p regnancy to J oseph and inslrucls him. -you will call h is n atn e J esu s. fOr he will sa"e his p eo ple rro 1n thC'ir s ins" ( I:21). The na m e J esus sums up I he b aby's mission or lifC's wo rk. ··to sa ve his p eople from th eir .sins." In ~h l lhc\'' 's view, these sins have bC"cn punished in the fall ofJ cru.salem in 70 C £ .1' Bm what docs this co mmission lnmlvc and how wiU Jesus carry it o UL? Arc t he sins- from which J esus is l.o savc- person;,l. indiv-i dua l. and internal si ns, o r is he conccm cd wilh a ll sin. anything a nd C\'crything in the world Lh;tt is contrary to God's g ood and just purposes, includ ing Roman im pe rial po we r? Verses 18-25 b egin to o ffer som e due:<>. First of all. the n a m e ':Jesus" is t.he Greek fo rm of I he He b rew n a m e -J oshua"' which m eans .. the Lord sa \-cs."'" Mallhew again assumes that heare rs of the Gospel slory know that t he m ost famo us j o shua in the biblical s 10f1' wm>lhe successor o f Moses. J o.o;hua comple ted the people's lib e ratio n from Eg)'pl. by 0\'e rcoming Canaanite p ower and o cc upying t he Promised Land . This link wilh J o.o;hua and the st rubrglc ove r I he land with the Canaanites s uggests that jesus' saving I ask is much m ore exte nsi\'c than only personal and indiYidual sins. MoreoYe r. t he S<:Opt' ofJ esus' ..saving f rom sins"' is clarified by ,·. 2 3. He re Jesus is lin ked wil h 1he prop hetic word of )sa 7:14 a n d given an additio nal n a m e and mission: lmm~mucl . ~cod with u s." Putting Mau ) :2 1 and 1:23 togethe r. h is task or commission is to m a n ifest God's saYing presen ce. E\•o king ls•tia h 7-9 is a nothe r ins1an cc of disguised knowledge that t he Gospel's readers are supposed to know. 1 ~ The dtapte rs con cern a t h reat lo Judah and King Ahaz front Ihe northern p o,,·ers Israel a nd Syria. as well as from t he Assyrian e mpire. Isaia h assu res Ahaz that God will p rotect Judah and points to the immine nt birth o f a child named Immanuel as a sign of the c:o n tinu:Hion of the David ic: line. BuLAhaz d ocs not trust tht' wo rd. and punishme nt at 1h e hands o f Assyria follows. Ahaz's sin is not j ust a personal ma Her~ it con cerns hO\l' lifC on the canh is o rdered. Yet t ~m i ah :\ISO promises that God will save the people from Assyr ia ( lsa 9 :1-2: cited by Mauhe w in 4:1:;- 16). So des pite u sing Assy ria to punish . God docs not sa n ction o r b less Assyr ian im pe rialism as a pc n nane nl or ;\ccc p lable way o f order ing the ,,·orld. It is impo rtant to note t hai M-:\lthcw's evo king of Asspian imperia l power in 1:23 matches the perspeCLives on B~-tbrlon ian impe rial po wer evoked by t he gcnealog)' in I: I 1- 12 . 17. God makes use o f an impe rial power to punish I he

I! 11 II 1~

C.rtcr. ·· 'To Sa\'C His People from Their Sins;" in Carter, Mtlllhrtu mod E mfd 1Y. 75--92. Carter, Mallhn •• mulllu• Mmgi11.•. :'14. Brov;n. Tllrllirtll tiftll r M rJ.\"iflil. l j l. Carter. .. Evoking baiah." in Carter. Mmthnfl rmd J·:mpiiY. 93-107.

Matl)uw 1-2 mul fiomtm Poli/.iwl Pmw-r

83

people. Then God sa\'es t he p eo p le from 1hat p owe r bec~n1se it is comrar}' to the d iv-i ne: p urposes. Ag ain a p ar allel wit h Rome's em p ire is implicit. Four crucial a ffinnal ions about God 's saving ways a nd J esus' role in t hem become dear in 1:18 - 25. Firs!. th is saving will take p lace in j esus. The /rom of Lhat sa\'ing is not yet clear a nd we ,,•ill have to n ::td fu rther lhrou gh t he Go.o;pd to g ain :w :w swer. Bull he con1inual e\'okin g of imperia l powers indicates that I he r..Yient of.Jesus• saving commission is to rcs1ore all of human lifC to p artici· pate in Cod's good and just purposes. Second, it is clear t h:u impe rial power docs not h a\'·e d ivine s;u1c1ion as a \v-ay of order ing t he world. God u ses it but docs not b less iLs pe rman ent establis h· mc nl. In facL. its oppn::ssive str u ctures th ai b ene fit ruling elites ,,·hilc damag· ing most of the pop u lation {as Matth ew's secon d ch apte r ,,,jll demonstrate) are contrary 10 God 's purposes e xpressed in the p romise to Abraham 10 b less a ll I he peoples o f t h e earth.Jcsus• sa,·ing from sin s is scl in th is splcmic. g lobal contexl . Third. J esus' commiss io n to manifesl God 'ssaving p resence ~ldd rcsscsa ce n· tral question with which posl·70. p osHcmplc J udaism '''rcstled : how lo c ncoun· ter God 's saving prcscncc after t he fresh asser tion of Ro m
The Empire Strikes Back th rough Herod (!'lhtt 2:1 - 23) What h ap pens. the n. '''h e n God•s saving p resen ce is as.scn ed in t he Ro man· dominated world ? The em pire slrikcs back. Mauhcw's secon d chap tc r d cm· o nstratcs t he realities of Roman impe rial power in a coll ision between King Hemd, 1he face of Ro man im peria l po wer in judc::1 centered in J erusale m. and

1~

Carter. "Roman Imperial Thcolog)',.. in Cartt"r. Muttht-n•mu/ E"'pirl'. 20-34.

84

Wr(rn>u Cllrt~r

1he ne'''· born J e.o;us. In d o ing so. the c h apte r exemplifies the p<"r.spcctivcs. on impe1·ia l p ower established in the first chapter. T h e o p e n ing verse o f chapter 2 a:o;s.cr Ls J esus' b irl h . t he1·cb}' confinning the e ffi cacy of the a ng cl'.s announce m e nt in 1:20-2 1 and d e monstrating God 's purp oses at work in the Roman wo r ld . The b irth takes pl:•ce ··in Bet hle h e m or Judea in the d a)'S of Herod t he king" (2: 1). This opening verse b r ings together L\'' O confl ictin g visions o f kingsh ip. The refcrc:"ncc 10 ··Beth lehem" identifies :t small Yillage marginal to the center of po,,'Cr (Jerusalem). b ut o ne th at ne \'c rthclcss h as ;m important h istory. AI BcLhlehem David was ano inted k ing ( I Sam 16:1- 13). T h e lin k with David recalls the ..O)' a n d scribes o f the people .. (2:4). We commonly think of these

Matl)uw 1- 2 mul fiomtm Poli/.iwl Pmw-r

85

characte rs a..o; ··relig io us lead ers,. and see t h i.o; as a meet ing be tween po litical a nd relig ious pe rsonnel o ver a relig io u s maHer. BuL .such an und c.· rst:md inga nd d ivisio n be tween relig ious an d po liticaltnaltcrs a nd personnel is anach ro · n istic fo r th e fi rst cen tury.!' The chief p riest...; were . acco rding to J o sep h us. 1he rulers ofJuden (Ant. 20. 10. 5 #251). Here they are Hero d's allies: to brelhe r the}' constitute 1he Ro me·allicd elite. membe rs of the go verning cl
Sec Anthonr J. Saldarini. l ·'fufl'iT.N.."J. Sr.ri6r.~. :lpfmmdt (Wilmington: Glazier. 1988).

Sud
John J. Collins. Tiff Srtfll.:rllnd tll r Stttr: '11•.: M euittlu '1 thr /klld s..., Srrotb cmd (Jtlttr A JJdnlt J.ttmawr (New York: D-oubleday, I 993)~J oscph A. Fi t1.m~-e r, T ht 01• r ll-'ll.o / .• Ill CQmt (Grand Ra pids: Ee rdnmtu . 2001). It Cu ter. M ttlt/ln•• mulll•, Mm'IJ'"·' · 78: Collins. Tll r- S.(.:pt<'r tmd I Itt Sun : 24. I!.

86

Wr(rn>u Cllrt~r

T his is Mallhew•s n egative evaluation of the..o;c leaders a nd pan o f h is cxplana· lion for their punislltnCill in Ihe C\'CrltS o f 70 C£ . T h e rest of the c h a p ter o utlines Hcrod•s a u c mpl to d estroy this sheph e rd ruler. h thereby rc \ 'Ca ls a n d calalogs som e of the standa rd ways tha t impe rial pO\~·c rs o pe rate. First. th e re is secrecy as H e rod su mmons t he m agi ( Mau 2:7 ). The n t here is manipu lation as he tu rns p ilg rims into sp ies. send ing the m agi to fin d the child a n d report b ack to him . Third. t here a rc lies as h e declares he wants to -won;h ip him " (2:8) when in fact h e wants to m u rder him (2:13). The n. finally. \v-hc n spies ;m d lies fai l. the re is murde ro us violence as Herod 's soldiers k ill -an the m a le c h ildre n in t he region o f Bethlchcnl two years <m d under" (2: 16). While it is commonplace to im agine (an d to depict in numerou s pa in tings} 1ho woa nds being .sl:mg htc red . Beth le he m and its region were sm all and so t here \vo u ld not have b een many infant.s in this age r.mge .~) To be sure, e \'t::ll one such d e;uh is o n e too m a ny. And !he narrative n oles the ·wailing and loud lamentation" in Oicted on th e popu lation by Herod•s murd erous a nd selfish d cfCnsc of his power and the clite-d01n inated .status q uo (2:18). Here again. Matthe w's quotat ion of.Jer 31 :15 aboul weep ing in Ra mah evokes the earlie r suffering arisin g fro m the Babylonian imr<:rial con quest o f .Judah in 587 1\CE. But in th is dan gerous imperi:ll world. God inte rve n es to p rotect Jesus a nd his commission to m anifest God's saving p resen ce. In 2: I2 God sen ds a d ream. warning the m agi not lO return to He ro d . T h ey comply: whenever impe rial po we r is a.'ise rtcd. rc-.si.sfancc takes p lace in all sorLo; o f forms. Then again in a d ream. an a ng el instrucLo; J oseph to take i\hry and Jesus w Eg)'pl (2: 13). The repealed use o f lhe term ~thc- child " instead o f the name ·:Jesu s"' underlin es the vulncr.•hilily of.Je.o;u s ;ts th e angel a lso reveals He rod•s p u rpose ~to dcsli'O}' h im" (2: 13). Being in Egypt. howcve1·. th\var ts Herod's efforts to k ill .Jesus in lkthlchem. Yet the final a nd much g reate r d dCn1 fOr He rod com e..; in the n arrative's 1hrc::c refere nces lO Lh e k ing's d eath (2:)4. 19. 20). The rep etition underscores h is fa ilure 10 k ill J esus and his own vu lne rab ilit}' to God's inten,en tion .:11 Another angelic appcanm ce to J oseph in a d ream guides J oseph . Mar)'. :md J esus b ac k to .Judea (2:19- 2 1). Hut, as Malth e wnote.s. ~Archclaus ruled o ver.Judea in t he place of his (athe r Herod ... news thal causes J oseph to fCar (2:22). The d eath o f He ro d i.s not the end of impe r ial power and it.s danger. His son Archdaus continues the :illliance wilh Ro me a nd is th e n ew face or Ro ma n power. Bu l again God inte rve nes a nd .Josep h i.!i guided to Galilee . .1\dmittedlr. I h is is u llim ~ncl y not an csc a p~:: fro m imperial p ower. J oseph return:'> 10 "Galilee und er t he Gent iles." a land ro Brown. Thr JJiTt/J t{f/Jt' .\lnsiu/J, 204-205. ~ Jose phus narrates Herod's painru l death(''"'· 17.7.:>-17.8.1 iNI6S.I92). reg:.uding il just punishment ror the king'.s crimes (A,.t. 17.7.5 168).

«

a$

Matl)uw 1-2 mul fiomtm Poli/.iwl Pmw-r

87

of ~d a rkn ess and the shad ow of d eath," a land th at God gan : to the people but n ow under Roman control. ruled b}' Ro m e's ally and agent Herod Antip as ( Matt 4 :14- 16. citin g ls.a 9 : l).n In this place Jesus will carry o ut h is commis..o;io n to m:mifest God 's sa\-'ing pre..o;encc (i\hu 1:2 1- 23).

Implications of Matthew Chapter 2 Sc,·e r al dime ns ions of this presenta tion in Matt hew's seco n d chapter m e r it fu r ther d iscussion. The first is very troubling . While God inlervenc:s th rough d reams, a ng els. and the fa ithful com p liance of .Josep h and Ma1·y to pr01ect J esus from He rod's murde ro us \'io lc n ce. it is n ot so for the infa n t.s amund Bethlehe m. Whe n Hcrod•s "-iolc n ce destro ys them. God docs n ol inte rven e to p rotect t hem. That is•.Jesus is spared at the expense of the dc;tth s a nd miser}' of other.s.111 The in ciden t raises the haunt ing question that while .Jesus is to man ifest God 's.sa\'ing presence, God does nol. saYe these infants from impe rial power. The scene has become a n C'!Xa m plc o f the ongoing destruction and p ain e mpires always cause in p u rsuit of t heir sclf benefittin g goals. whe the r in first· cctlluq•.Ju d e
4

4

4

Clrtcr. -E\'oking baiah." in Carter. Mtlllltrtu ""d l:'mpiw. 93-107. at the e nd or lhc: Gospel J esu~ also dies at the h~lnds of the same imper ial authoritr. ~~ Sec: the discussion or Alejandro Alberto Duarte:. -Matthew,~ in moout Biblr CtJmiWrnlin-J. ed. Daniel Patte (Na~hvillc: Abingdon. 200-4) • .150-60. 5 Warren Carter. -construction ofVioleuc.e and Identities in Matthew's Gospel," in \·'inir11r, h1 111r Nnv 7i!.tlmnl'tli, cd. Shdty ~l :ttthe\\'S a nd E. Leigh Gibson (New Yort: T.\'T Clart, 200;), 81- 108. !I> Walter Wi nk. "Bc:rondJu.st W:-ar and l':tc.ifism: Jesu.s' Nonviolettl War," IU-ui.-n>~md H.,jm~it~r 89 0.~92) 197- 2 14: ~Nt'ither Passi\'it)' nor VioiC'ncc:: Jesus' 'fhir(J W:n• (M~HI 3; 38 42 pa r.). in Tlu l.m.v ofEnnrry tmd Ntmt'<'laiit~timt i11 lltr !'li'rt~l '/h./m,m/1. ed. Willard M. Sw:trl kr (LouisYillc:: \\'cslminslc:r Johlt Knox. l992), I02-2.!J. r. Ra msar MacMullen. X mrr1111 .W riall
!t

~ Admittedly.

4

88

Wr(rn>u Cllrt~r

J esus forbids m eeting Roman imperial v-io le n ce with vio le n ce in 1he p resent (5:38-42: 26:51 - 53). Violence is the preserve of God in the final esch:nologl· cal d C"slrucl ion of Ro m a n po wer (24:27-31).11< But t hat does n ol. mean pa.ssivity or unquestioning com p liance in the m eamime. Rather. no nvio le nl. act in :. r e t protective resisL:a n ce is to m ark impc rial n cgoli:nio n. T h ird. h'ithin the actions and wo rds or Mauhcw's second c h olpter a re cchoc.s of the accounts of Moses in Egypt a nd of the e xo dus from Egypt.21' Both narra.· lin~·.s invoh~ Eg)'PL Both the infant Moses and the inf

:: I. to Israel a.s God's son (Exod 4:22) being delivered from Pha r;toh 's oppress i n~ and c n slm'ing p ower in Egypt. The re arc \'erbal sim ilarities between the account ofJ csus' return fro m Egypt ( Mau 2: 19 -2 1) a nd Moses• return to Egypt ( Exod 4: 19- 20). A.s wilh t he rcfe re n c<:'s to Babylo n ian <:'Xile and Ass}'r ian power in ~'la !l l lcw'.s first clmpler. the evoking of Mo ses i.s cryptic, CO\'c rl. subtle. and subversive. T h e:' echoes of t he Moses-Exo dus account underscore I h e pe rvasi\'C reality of imperial po\,'Cr as wel l as God's contro l o Yer it. H e rod is a Pha r aoh look-alike bo th in his resistance to I he d i,·in e p urpose a nd in God 's thwarting of h im . Just ;•.s Herod is "deceived,. or "mocked"' by the magi (Ycrb trmfmizOin 2 :16). so is Pharaoh by Moses a nd A
~

2fl

Warrr.n Carter. ~Arc T here Imperial Texts in lhl" Class? lntC'rlc:xtual f.a~les and Matthcan Eschatology as ' Lights O ut' Time for Imperial Rome (r>.htl 24:27-..11)... Jmmml tif Hihlinll Ld.-mtwr 122 (200:1) 467-87. Brov;n, T/u IJMh uftM .\to:.~..-illlt, ) l:~ -1 6; Dale C. Allison. T/u Nn ,,., .\lr>us.: A M illlltnm 1.Vf101t~gy (r..linncapolis: Augshurg Fortress. 1993). l42-44.

Matl)uw 1-2 mul fiomtm Poli/.iwl Pmw-r

89

part1c1p ;tte in God 's ahernatin: ways o f b eing. While the political elite in J e rusalem resist God's in itiat ive, those who are marg inal ;m d o f lillie account (as far as this center is co nce rned) p a rticipate in wh at God is doing. The motgi, whose quest ion about o n e born "'king of t he J ews"' has g reatly d isturbed 1he hold ers of power in J e rusalem. re main undeter red by the po we r structure in accomplishin g t heir quest to fin d h im :wd p ay ho m age. In offering t heir gifts. the magi arc guid ed not by t he particularities of the Scrip tun.;s b ut by what they d iscern in the created world ( Matt 2:9 - 10). Their ac:tion s rec;tll traditio ns th ai anticipate Gem ilc:" coming to worship God in j e rusalem ( Mic 4:1 - 4: lsa 60:1- 6). But they also subvert t he tr aditio ns. These m agi :m: no t k i n~rs a nd they do n ot find J (_•ru.salcm to be a plUS fro m a king who wants to kill h im. J oseph has dcmonstr.ued h is faithfu lness in obeying t he angd•s instruction to m arry the p regnant ~hrycvcn tho ugh (it would seem t.o a ny o n loo ke rs) she h as disho nored h im in con ceiving a child that is no t his (1:20-25). Likewise, Mary h as exhib ited profOund cour· age. Pr(_-gn a nt (with no reference in Matthe w to he r consent) a nd betrot hed. she is cullUraHr, socially. economically, and religious lt· m argin;,!. Passages su c h as Sir 23:22- 26 a n d Wis 3:16 - 19: 4:3- 6 p rono unce male c urses o n and a nic u· l:ttc hoslj le alii tudes toward a wo m a n (and h e r child) in suc h circ umst:tncc.o;. Sir 23:22- 26 { ~RSV) : '.!'l So it is with :t wom:m who leaves h e r husband a nd presents him with an h eir b y anothe r man. ~~ ~ For· fi rst of He1· chil· dren will not take root. and her b r.mch es will not bear f ruit. 16 She will leave b eh in d a n accu rsed m e m o ry and he1· d isgrace will never be blo tted o ut. \Vis 3 : IG- 19 ( N RSV): tr. Hut children of adulte re rs will not come to m aturity. and t he o ffspring of an unla"rful unio n will perish." Even if t he)' live lo ng they will be held o f no account, and fi nally t heir old age will be without honor. 111 If thC)' d ie young . they will h:wc n o hope and no co n sol:ttio n on 1h e da}' ofjudgment. 1!1 For the e nd o r an unrighteous gencration is grie,·o us. (See also Wis 4 :3 - 6 .) The empire reinforced a pat r iarchal society pre-sided owr by the emperor ~ls fxlll'r patriae. .. father of the fath crl;m d ." The m ale-dom inated im pe r ial ord e r

Wr( rn>u Cllrt~r

90 t~Xc:" rc iscd

co nt rol over d om estic lifC si nce ho use hold s we r e understoo d to be the OOsic u n it o f a political e ntity. Wom e n we re id e n tified in 1e rms o f their rda· Lionships with sig n ificant m ales. Reproductio n was co n trolled so as to e nsure clea r lin cs of d e.scenl. 30 In th e.sc circum sta n ces and g u ided by angelic a p pe arances and d r c;uns (2:13. 19, 22). Mary and J oseph fa ith fu llr and courdgcouslr jou rney as rc fu· gees to Egypt a nd lalt:r return to the lnnd o f Israel and th e n Galilee to p r01ect J esus . Co nsistc n tlr the re is a dose sim ila r it)' between t he lang uage:" employed by the a n gel to instruct J o seph . ;md LIHll whic h occ urs in th e fo llowing \'Cr.sc to narr.Lie J o.o;cph 's obed ie nce. So in Matt 2 :13 . the a n gel command s. ··Get up. ta ke lh e ch ild and h is n1o 1he r. a n d fl ee to Egy p t. a n d r e m ain th e re until I tell you • . ." Ve rse )4 n arrates J oseph 's obedie nce: W Thc n J ose ph g o t u p . too k 1he c h ild a nd h is mother br n ight. and we ml.o Egypt . . ." A sim ila r corrC"spo nd e ncc is evident in 2:20 and 2 1. Throug h J oseph's and t\•la f1··'s actio n s. the s~wi ng pres· c nce o f God r e n :-aled in .Jc.o;us is p rotected and furthe red in th e dan ge rous a nd threale ning wo rld o f emp ire.

Conclusion These opening ch apte rs o f Mall hew's nativity story a re d eeply enmeshed in the Roman im perial wo r ld. Ro me's e mpire is not th e b ackg round f()r a ~rcli· g ious story" th
jO

Y

On kinship i n ancient pa tr ian:ha1.socicl ie~.sc-c; K.C. B :tn ~n . ~K imhip," in ·n~~·Se>rif'll Sd,.,m:J tm d .Vnor l~stamrnl / nl"rprrtalitm, ed. R kh~l rd I .. Rohrbaugh (Peabody: He nd rickson, 1996). 6 2- 79. For fur1her discussion or :-lew Testame nt texts negotiating Roman po\,·er. .sc<- Warren

Carter. 2006).

T/u Nn!! 1t.•·w mn1t tmd tlut Ttommt t :mpiTr. A

11

J:J.)'I'111iQ/ G •tid"

(Nash\·ilk : Abingdon.

Chapter 7

Making Sense of the Matthean Genealogy: Matthew 1:17 and the Theology of History BcncdicL T. Viviano, O.P.

Upon o p e ning the Nc'" Testament. m~my readers arc discou raged by iLs firs t page. th e gcnea!Ob')' ofJ esus (M-tear ~tst-whc tJlc r a n cient (such as the biblical b ook o r First Chronicles) or modern- is cold comforL E\•c n the idea that Mall h ew by this gcne~dogy is trying to condc n :<:c the whole o f the O ld Tcslamenl {Hebrew Bible a n d d cutcrocanonical book...;) as I he indispensable backg round to Lhe gospel siOl)' o f.J csus only helps a little. The thesis of this ~say is that tJ1c C\'angclist Matth ew is h e re, in the threepart structure he pro vides fo r h is genealogy. presenting the reader '''ilh the partial outline of onc- o f the earliest recorded theo logies o f history. He is thc rebr furthe r signaling to the alert reader that with th e birth of.Jcsus -a n ew e ra of salvation h istory has begun. The th rt:c-part structure is sum m
92

Bttlll!dict 7: Fivimw. O.P.

\\thercvcr people h ave experienced :t major upheaval in hislorr. the)' become hungry fO r some sort o f O\'erall explan ation. Thus. afte r the Fre nch Revolution and the war.s of Napoleon !he p h ilosop h ies of h istory on·c rcd by Hegel and Schlegel were eagerly d evoured . and I h eir wod;.s were widely tra nsl:.tcd .1 The s:m1e thing happened after World War I. when Oswald Sp e ngic'r•s turgid IJuJin~ ofJlur ll~rf becun e an inlcrnatiomll bestse l l er.'~ Again.
I926-I9"1St

~ Arnold TO):ttbee. ;l SJ•tdJ of/li.rlt~ry. 12 ,·ols. abridged in 2 vols (New York Oxford Uniwrsity Press, 1946. 1957}. ~ Franci$ Fukuyama. 11•~ t:rttl <>/Hi.1lt~r.v tmd Jlu· l~((.rt .\la11 (Nt•w York: Fr<'<' Press. (992). ~ Samuel P. Hunlington. Th<' C/tuh lifCivili::Alit.m.• <md "'" h'r~~tttlr.'ng <>/ mm'd O •YI<'r (Ne-w York: free Press. 1996). t> Oscar Cullmann. CluUl tmd TiJn<' (Philadd)>hia: W~tmi n.st cr. 1964: orig. 1946). ' The Gr.::c:k word t~WJJ olkn represents the Hebrew term 'tilti111 .

93 Ea.stc:"rn empires kllO\\'"Il to the author of Dan iel ( Babylon ian, Mc:d e, l'crsian. and Greek}. with the addition of a fina l agc.8 Thi~ five-p~utsc:hcme was received in t he Book of Rc\'dation a nd has~~ long h istory of in fl ucnce.9

A Seven-Part Divisio n of Histo ry The mosl dcn·lopcd scheme ofbib lkal pc riodi:r.:u ion is . however, a .sewn·parl -.system." The re a rc variants o f this scheme. especially in J u daism.1" b uL m Christian writings the seven ages or periods usuallr run as fo llows: I. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

From Adam to Noah. From Noah to Abr.l h ~~m. From Abn1ham to Oa"id . From David to the Exile. From the Exile to J esus. From J esus to his Second Coming . From the Second Coming to the End of the World.

This seven-pari scheme calls for a number of comments. but let us come to 1he point at once. This sch e m e sccm.s to be k no"'l1 t.o the cvangcli.sl Matlhcw. In my view. h e presupposes it :l.s known to 1h e more learned of his rc~tdcrs. 11 H e proce<:d;o; to ext ract three o r fOur of the seven .stages. a nd he insists upon 1he m in se\·eral ways. He begins with two christological titles that strucLUrc I he whole Gospel in some scn;o;e, b ut certa inly structure the gencalob•·y: ~The book of the origin ofJcsus Christ. son of Oa,·id . son of Abraha m.. (Mall 1: 1). Mallhcw Lhc n goes 011 lo give~~ li.sl o f tume.s (from the third. fou r I h . a n d fifth ages in 1he se\'en-p a rt scheme). running from Abr.lham 10 David. from Da,·id 10 the Babylonian ex ile. and from the exile to Joseph . Mary, and .Jesus. He con· eludes with :\ surn an:uizing verse, already cited. that is decisi"e for o ur argu· melll. ~The refo re all the generations from Abr.tham to O:n·id (an:] fou n ccn generations, a nd fmm David to the exile of Ba br1on [are] fo urleen generalions. and from Lhe exile of lhbylon to the Christ [are] founeen generations.. (Matt I: 17).

The carlicsl Chri~t i:m commentator on Daniel. Hippolrtus of Rome {third century), r('placcd the Gr('t•k ('tnpirc ,,·ith the Ruman one. and thi~ became the common inter pretation until the nineteenth ccnturr. t Mariano Delgado, Klaus Koch. an11djiillrign R~>id• •md ·""""~: Hi'lt {Freiburg: Univers.it ii.LS\~rlag. 2003). •• Hermann L. Stracl :and Paul Billcrbcck. K mnmrnlm· :ru.u N i'lt<'n ·fi<•.tflmn•l a•u 14/Jiflld •tnd Midrrmh, 6 \"Ois (Munich: Bed:, l922-l961). 3.824-27. II On the rt•:ader's task of filling the gaps in a ~tory. s.ec Mcir St('rnbng. 11u Ptll!lir.1 "fHib/inll Utmtii••Y (Bloomington. 1 ~: Indiana Unh~r.si tr Press, 1985). 186-90. !.

Bttlll!dict 7: Fivimw. O.P.

94

Re pet itio n is a biblic:d form of C"mphasis. Mauhew is insisting on .something. but h e d ocs no I say c xplicill}' what it is. To be .sure, readers han~ always unde rstood that the gen ealogy rdalcs Jesus 10 (and roots him in) the hisiOl)' of l.srael. thc chosen people o f God. (They may not always have rejoiced in this fact but thC)' ha\'e understood it.) Our thesis. to repeal. is that Man hew is also provid ing a 1h eology of history. In this theology each stage of biblical rc\'daLion has its p lace and meaning. With the coming ofj esus called C h rist (1 :16). a new stage of salvation history has begun. While men I ioning on I)' the m idd le 1hrec stages. Mauhcw presupposes the early sL;tge.s f rom Adam to Koah to Abraham a.s known. and elsewh e re h e names Noah (24:37- 38). a lthough h e ne\'cr mentions Adam by name.

Implicalions o f the Seven-Age Scheme Now that th e main point has b een moldc. there is a place fO r som e conuncn Lo; on the scheme in seven stages, and then for some of its implicat ions as these h ave been worked out by early Christian e xegesis. Particular allcntio n will he given to :u1c ienl writjngs that divide sacred history into thousand·year pe riods. b egin n ing with Re velat ion (20:1-10) and Second Pete r (3:8-13). This approach is c a lle d chiliasm (Greek r.hilia =thousand ) or mille n arian ism ( Latin miJJ,.. mmi = a thousand rears). Such a n approach has often had a bad repu ta tion in the Catho lic Church. It is widely thoug ht to be an area reserved for cmckpots, b ut th:-n may be unf~~lr. The sch eme of thousand-year periods wa.s constructed by I he amhors o f Second Peter a nd Revelation through a combination o f two b ib lical p a.ssages: the seven da}'S of c reatio n as recounted in Genesis I. plus the Psa hnist'.s conccpl: ~A thousand years in your sighl arc like yesterday when it is p:lSl. or like a watch in the n ight" (Ps 90:4). By combin ing these two clements. each day of creation Wil.S ta ke n to n :fc r to a t.hou.s;md-ycar p e riod of history. The fact tha t the inte rvals between each of the period-; did not ah,·ars amount to a thousand years e xact ly (e.g.. the tim e between David and lhc e xile. or between the e x ile and J esus) d id nol seem to trouble som e of lhose who adopted I he sche m e. Ne,tnhdess. Mall hew is cautious in speak ing of fOu rteen generations. not o f thous:ttld -rear pt'riods.12 Matthew 1:2-17 is perhaps an original fusion of two d iffere nt schemes: (a) a world week of seven mille nnia ! ~da)'S."' that is. seve n 1ho usa n d·year periods of

It

Alrred Wikcnhauscr. -o~u Problcm des tausencljahrigen Rcichc-.s in dcr Johann<'-Y Apokalrpse." Riimi.w/11: q um·talvllrif140 (1932) IJ--2!>: idem. ~Die Hcrlamll der tdcc de~ tausencnahrigtn Rckhe$ in der JohanMs-Apok:atvpsc."' Utill'li.•dl" Qtmdfft..rhrijl 45 (!937) 1-24: idem. ~wdtwoch c- und tau.sen ~j;ihrij,'l"S Reick" Tll<'ol<>girr:ltr Qt((lrtttl..rhrifl )27 (1947) j99-4 17.

95 sal\'at ion history: (b) a sche me of gcnC"ralions g rouped o r broken up by major f1gur cs or cvcrus: Adam, :-.ioah. Abraham, D:wid. th e Exile, J esus. The rm~jor figures or C\'Cnt.s g i n~ histo rical labels to each of Ihe millc nnia l -days" and thus make them more con crete a nd m eaningful. The three sets of names in M:'llthe w"s gcnca1og)' should yield a tot~d offorty1\oJO n ames. ( For why 1hey do not. sec later.) If we add the te n generations from Adam to Noah (Gen 5:3- 31) a nd Ihe ten gen e r ations from Noah's son Shcm to Abraham (Gen ) 1: 10 - 26). plus the fO rty-two gencrations f rom Abraham to J esus (1\•l atl I:2- 17). we arrive at a total of sixty-two gcn cr.ttio ns from Ada m to Jesus.':~ This total figure calls w mind the sixtr-two weeks m ention ed in Dan 9 :25. One hcsitoues to pursue this link for a number o f reasons. First, there is the evident d iffe re n ce between generat io ns of n a m ed figures and weeks. Second. the s ixty-two weeks of Daniel g come in a larger conlcxl of sevent}' weeks. d i\·id ed into sixty-two. se\'c n. and on e~. all pat·t of Gabriel's \'isionaq• m essage {Dan 9:24-27). In its o r igi nal inte nt. this pas..o;agc. renowned fo r its d iffi culties. probably refCrs to the p eriod between the return from ex ile under Zc rubbabel (along with the high priest Joshua) a nd 1h e death of Onia.o; Ill, the deposed h igh priest murde red in 171 BCE. The six tr-two weeks a rc a round number to describe the per iod from t he return d own to Antiochus IV. As such. this scheme d oes not fit p c r fCct ly with Matthew's text. l-Ie deals with the same pe t·iod in t he fourteen generations of the th ird sectio n of h i.s gen c;llogr.

.Jesus and Moses Mauhew d oes n o t mention Moses in this genealogy. e ve n to locate the lifetime of ~Nahshon son of Aminadah" (Nu m 1: 7: 2:3: cf. Matt 1:4). From a J ewish viewpoint I his is a breat ht a k ing omission. A fl cr a ll, Moses is traditiona ll}' regarded as the human author of the Tor.th, the instruction divinely revealed on Sinai. The T orah o r Pentateuch J'emains to this d ar t h e canon wit h in the canon fol' obscJ'vant Jews, a n d the m ain r eading al t he weekly ser vice. The Torah is by fa r the most important part of the Hebrew Bible in the tradilio n al J e \,•ish scale of values. Thus. for Matthew to omit ~·loses he re cou ld seem to J e wis h readers as leaving oul the most important human figure in biblical h isto r y. To be sure. Matthew is o ffe r ing a gencaiOb')' o f a Judahite, a son o r David. not o f a Levite . But the genealogy is also t r ying to slwpe a vie w of sah·at ion h istor y. In this context t he omission of Moses h:\s a dccentering effect. Th is is .so. cYcn though Matthew's Gospel shows n o

11

Sec: la1er for St. Augustine's u ndersta ndingofthis point.

96

Bttlll!dict 7: Fivim w. O.P.

hostilil)' to the To rah or Moses (5: 17- 20: 2 3:23).11 Indeed , Moses is named sen~ n times in M:Hthe w (8 :4: 17 :3. 4: 19:i . 8 : 2 2:24; 23 :2) . Mo reove r. th e Law is m e n tioned n ine times. b u t it is orten associated wit h t he prophe ts. as if to sortc n the legal fOcus.'~ But the ge n ealogy's emphasis is elsewhere. o n David a nd Ab raha m ::1s fOrebea rs of.Jcsus . Some scholars belie \'<: that !he .stru c wre of Mall he w's Gospel sugge..o;ts that he pr esents .Jesu s as a n e w Mosc.o;. In a sho rt essay pu b lished ahnost a ce n· lurr ago . Be qjamin W. B~1con n o ted thac after each of fin~ majo r d iscourses in Matthe w (7:28 ; II: I: 13:53; 19 :1 ; 26:1) a p hrase occurs t ha t marks th e e nd o f the d iscourse.14 T he p hrase runs: ··Now whe n .Jesus had flnishc."
II Dale C. Allison. 'f'llr ,1\"rw M 41o : tt Mt~tt/Jnm 1'J'Jioi"KJ ( ~ li nncapolis.: Fortll'SS, 1993), 182. •> Alexander Sand . /M .v Gr,,rtz u ml dir J'wp hrlm (Biblisc:he Untersuchu nge-n 11; Rcgc:nshurg: Pustet. 1974}. •• Benjamin W. Bacon. ~Th e Fin: Books of Mall hew ag:tinl'l theJ ews." T hr t:..,'fm.~itor 15 ( 19 IS) 56-66. " Allison. N<'rl' Mo.~.-.,. 192. 1!. [\·en if a rew daring scholars (in nuenced by redaction crit icism) might han : thought that ~ la l th l"\\' d id indeed inh.,ltd a dc:center ing o r shifl or accent from the paschal proc· lamaliou to :t semi·Pc:lagian works right<:ousncss. they wcrc- carr:ful not to sar this in print. tt Pie rre" Be noit, ~M:-all h ku ." B iMr d ..jiru.vtlnlf (Paris: Cerf, 1950: !'t"\ ", ed n, 196 1). T he seven acu arc- listed in Benoit's j mmtk •" Wbldr ansl:.tion annotations: the pre p.."lration (ch:tps 1-2): lhe rormal proclamation (chaps :S- 7); preaching b)' .signs a nd missionaries (chaps S- 10); the obstad es to the kingdom (11: 1-13:52): the Clm rch in embryo ( 1:):53-18:35): the crisis (chaps 19--25): the coming of the kingdom through sum•ring :tnd resurrec•ion (chaps 26- 28). !& Edg~u 1\.r("nl:t, "T he Extent of Matthcw,s Prologu("," Jmu-mtl 'if Hiblinll Lilt'mlmY. S:S {1964) 409-14. Krenlz's th ree--pa rt di\·ision is based on the rc-pe·atC"d llhr:tsc ·rrom tl1e n )e.sus began- (t~JH> M.- ;.,,,.,J''' /14 o.~ocu: 4:l7: 16:21). This gi\l'S the di,·ision: 1: I- 4:l6: 4: 17-f6:20: 16:2 1-28:20. 11li.s diYision d issolvt.S the liw discourst_-s into !he paschal mnsage.

97 a lternatio n of nar rative and discourse. th ereby bu ilding on the insight o f Bacon: Chapters 1-4: Birth an d begin nin gs (na r r;llive = 1\); 5- 7: Sermon on the Mount (d i$co ursc =- D):

8- 9: Attthorit)' a nd irwit.;ttio n (1\); 10: Mission ( 0 ): 11- 12: Rejectio n by this gen eratio n (!\); 13 : Seve n parables of the kingdom ( D):

14- )7: Acknowledgement by • he disciples

( ~) ;

IS: Community rules ( 0 ): )9-22: Autho rit}· an d inv-itatio n ( N);

23- 25: Woes and apocalypse ( 0 ): 26- 28: Death a nd resu rrection ( N) .

In t h is analysis a ll twen ty· eight chap ters a re em b r aced in a mean ingfu l whole. cente red o n the p arables o f the k in gd 01n. \!l But I h is ch iastic .solutio n , like: 1h e solut io n s of Be no it and Kre ntz. h as fai led to im po se itsd f o n manr scholars.1:~

J esus and J oshua Mean while, in th e neighbo r ing field o f Old Testamen t studies, J ames A . Sand ers h ad a b r illia n t intuitio n , which he set dO\''n in a b r ief book t itled 1{mt!r a11d Cm um .n He thereby lau n ch ed a whole n ew appro ach to t he l~i ble called cano n c riticis:m. In his little book. his strongest id ea was this. Origin ally. t he Hebrew fOun d atio n .sto r y was a Hc:xateu ch . a six·pa r t work that co n cluded with Joshua a n d the conqu es t of t he Prom ised l..;tn d b y fo r ce . Some time later. th e: r..tbb is d ecided to divide t he .sac red book s diOCrc ntly. Genesis to De uterono my became the: Pe 1Uatc uch. while J osh ua was placed with th e: early pr o phcLo;. Fo r San d ers. chis was a blessing fo r bo th Judaism and Ch ris tianity. II provided !he m with a fo undatio nal text that '''as not essen I ially b o u n d up \\l"it h a violenl conqu est o f a p articu la r tc rrito r r. This n e w a r ra ngement was bcltcr su ited to :\ Judai!>nt t h ~at . fo r millen n ia. had lo s u n· i v.:~· o u tside I he lan d - like Moses. And it s u ited C h ristian ity better with iLo; st:nse o f u n i,•crsal m is sion.

Cha rles H. tohr. "Oral Tcchni<(UCS in I he Gospel of Matthew." Ct~lholk /Jibliml QmM t:riJ 23 ( 196)) 40>- >5. !t William D. Oa\'it'$ :utd Dale C. Allison. A Crili ffll trml t:.wgdi('ll/lAm,.,..,tm -:r tm t/u- eo~!'rl tumrdi11g ttJ Sl .\ltltfh n o•. j wls (ICC: Edinburgh: T&T Clark. 1988- 1997}. 1.61-72. ~ f:tmesA. Sanders, J Ord tmd Cmum ( M i nneapoli ~ : fortress. 1972; srcond re,·. cd n, Eugene. ·oR: Cascade. 2005}. !1

98

Bttlll!dict 7: Fivimw. O.P.

its e mphasis o n no nviolence a n d love of e n C'm ic.s. it.s o rie nt.;t Lio n wwa rd the fu ture esch a to logical g ift o f 1he kin gd o m of God ;m d toward e ternal Iif(: wit h God in heave n . So fa r. so good . But wh a t i f ~i
27:5 1-53).2 ' A possib1c o bjectio n to I h is prop o .!Oal is that we d o not kn o w e noug h a h o lll th e c urrency or the He xatc uch m o d el at t ilt' tim e o f Mauhe w. Afte r a ll. som e h :wc p rop osed a n Enn catc u c h m o d el. ca r ry ing t he- T o r a h th roug h three m o re b oo ks ro r a total of n ine, adding to 1h e p rc,•io us six t h e Books o fJ u d ges. Samue J. a n d Kin g s. (The last Lwo are re cko n ed as single b ooks in t he He b re w co mputation .) Bo th 1-le x::ateu c h a n d Enn ca tc u c h offe r muh iplcs o f Ma u h e w's beloved triad, and a n o rmal r ecko n ing co unts six co ntr:tsl.s b c t\\'een th e Law o f Mo ses and J esus' teach ing in Ma tt 5:2 1- 48. However, Joshua .so n of Nu n. Moses' successor. seems to p la y no role in ?>.btthc w (con t rast Acls 7:45: He b 4 :8: I I:30- 3 1). a tld so Lhe sug gestio n is not without its d ifficu lties. O n t he o the r h a nd . alm ost as soo n as th e Ch risti:u l C h u rc h began to e nte r into polem ica l d e ba te with t he Syn ago gue. Lhe sto rr ofJ o sh u a (Jesus so n o f Nave in the Septuagin t spelling ) became an ideal l)'pC of Ch ris !. J o sh ua W ;'IS contrasted with Mo st;s in h is \'ic LOr}' o ve r Amalck. in h is c ro ssing o f th e .Jordan (a p re fig u re m e n t of b a ptism ) . in h is recci,ring lh c .seco nd la w ( De ute rono m}'), a nd in his co n q uest o f t he la nd (•h e fall o r.Je ric ho '"".t.s inte rpre ted as a symbol o f th e e n d o f th e wo r ld ). Matthe w in fact does n o l me nt io n J os hu a in the gc nc:'alo g y. e ve n tho u g h · N:c1 hshon son o f Am in adab,. ( ~um 10:14: cf. Mall 1:4) w ;t.s h is co n te m por a r y {Num 11:28). He d o cs. ho we ve r, include m e ntio n ofRa h a b in MaLL 1:5. Rahab became a type o r I h e Church. esp cci:tlly as a type o r Lhe p aga n s who a re in corpo rated into the t~uleJirr. th e peo p le of Go d . and 1hu s spared in 1he destr u ction that befCJI J e r ic ho. In the Nc'" T estame n t she is an a ncc.!>tor o f J esu s

~~

John P. Meier. Mrmltn~ (Wilmington, DE: Glazier. 1980) . .369.

(Matt 1:5). and thC"n is conlr.&sted as a model o f sah·ation h)' works t)a.s 2:25) and as a m odel of saiYation br f~lit h ( Heb I 1:30- 31).?5 T h e fan1 lmt Rahab is m e ntioned in Mallhew•s gencalog)' (1 :5) is the a nchor for the basic id ea Lh:H Mall h ew was well awar e o r the com e n ts of Lhe 1\ook o f J o shua. The ract that he chose" n ot to rcndC"r the Jo.s hua~Jcsu s t)'"[>Oiog}' more explicit matches h is general liler:tf}' d iscretio n. He d oes not usc footnOles1hey h ad n ot )'C"l b een im•cnted . He is telling:. story and g i\·ing instr u ct.ions to 1he ch urch. With regard to str ucture he lca\'CS d iscreet h ints in the fin~ con cht· sio n s to thC" g reat d iscourses (7:28: I I: I; 13:53: 19:1: 26:1). but h e does not h it 1he read er over the head. [ven more is this discretion and restraint p reselll in the last three chapters of the gospel. The b ib licall)' literate read er is. howevc1·, f ree" l.o interpret the silen cC"s.

From the Coming ofJesus to the End of the World In the seve n·stage scheme the sixth age ( b e tween the fi rst and second com· ings o f Chr is t} is som e times called the tim e o r the C h urch. t h e time of th e Holr Spirit. the tim e in wh ic h w e live now. In the Acts of the Apostles the r isen C h r ist gi,•e s the apostles the Spirit as a foretaste of the fu ll realization o r the Kingdom, as the glfl for I h is inte r\'al (AcLo; 1:6- 8). To be sure. theologically the Sp irit is present at a ll period s of h istor)'. from creation (Gcn ) :2) to the end of the world a n d berond . But the New Testam e nt presen ts the time: after Easter as a pC"rio d of ~1 special outpou ring of the Spirit ( Pe ntecost). On tile ot he r hand . I he n u mber six can suggest :t tim e of e\•il just befOre the fu lfi llme nt, wh ich is thus associated with the n u mbe r sc\'en. Thi!i could account for some of th e d isappointing, e\'cn sin fu l. aspecLo; o f the l~rst t" 'O thousand )'C"ars. In the SC\'Cn·p a rl sch eme. the SC"\'enth age wou ld in\'()lvc the coming (pamrt· .sia) in glor)' of 1he Son of ?>.hn. His coming im·o lvesjudb'1llent (Mat.L 25:3 1-46) and gove rning the world in justice and peace (Matt 24:3. 27. 3i, 39: 1 Cor 15:23; I Thess 2: 19 ; 3:13: 4: 15~ 5:23). J udg ing here in cludes I he He bre w scn.se of the \'erb Jlliiphat. as in the Bo ok ofj u d gcs. where charismal ic leaders su ch a.s Debo rah . Gideon, and Samso n d o in d eed j ud ge cases. but abo lead in baulc and go\'ern th e people. Read('rs m ay rc:'lsonabl)' ask '''here th i.s SC\'en th age is suggested ln the gene· a log)'· The anS\\'Cr is surprising. If we return to our key str u cturing verse (1 : 17). we recall t h :tt Mallhew ins isiS o n the number fo u rteen th ree tim es. Now \\•hen 5

11tc: joshua l}'pology. alrc:adr fou nd in tlH· IJUl'rt~{ BnrMiN•.• (12:7- JO: 17:14). is b'T~ tlr dt\'t'Topcd bySt.Justin Martyr ( DiflltJgru·wii/J ·nyplu.o49. 70. 75, 89- 90. 113-14). SL lr<'n:u-:u.s, Tc:rtu11ian. St. Hippolytus.St. Clement ofAiexandria. Origcn (\\·h o dc\'Ott.-d a commenta rr to th~ Book ofJoshua), Eu.sebius, Sl. CyrU orJc:m salem. a nd Sl. Z<'no or Verona. Cf.Jcan Oaniclou. f)lJ•n SlmdiJuJJ; 111 RMIIIy: Sllulir.• l'rt t/u Wbliu•l "lj'fJoi~Jg.r '!f.thl' l,.tllllrrs (\\htminstcr. MD: !-.'1."\\'lllan. 1960), 22'7- 28.

100

Bttlll!dict 7: Fivimw. O.P.

we ~lc l ua ll y cou nl the names we do fin d fOu rteen n :uttes (or gcncr.ll ions) in the firs t two lisLo; b m onlr thirteen in the third lisl. Wh}' is this? Several suggestions h:wc been made. b UL ontr on~ is o f tmUor theological significan ce. IL was cautio usly tnadc h)' 1h e late Swedish scholar Krislc r S1cnd ahl in 1962. T lte thirteenth name is .Jesus. "who is called the Messiah (or C h rist]" { 1: 16. 17). For Stc ndah l. the missing fOurteenth name is :dso J esus Ch r ist but now as Son of Man in h is g lo ry. ~at his coming (ptmm.sia) :ll the e n d of time. We . . . h:wc h ere the strong fllluristic eschatology of the earl)' churc h." 16 This suggestion wo uld seem farfetched a nd improbable if it d id not fit so well with Matthew's J e wishC hristian outlook. which includes an interest in esch atology, apocalr p tic. and s.:tlval ion-historical thi nking. Mallhe \v's broad mu look p oin Lo; to Ihe universal significance ofjcstL<; as he come..; first in humility and suffcring:md then in h is g lo ry in the future. a nticipated a lre;tdy b)' his Easler r esurrection.

From Adam to Abraham The re is another perplexing omission in 1\•lalthew's gcn e;,logy. If M:\llhcw knew lh c sen: n-p art sch eme (as we assume he did ). why d id h e omit the first two part.s: from Adam to Noah. and the n from Noah to Ab raham? What is dear f ro m Man 1:1 and 17 is that Matthew is striving fO r a christological concen t rat ion on Abraham and David as ancestors of the J e\VS. ~hllhew makes no m ention ofJt;sus as a second Ada m (cf. ) Cor 15:45) or as .son of Ad~lm ( Luke 3 :38}."~' There is also no dc\'dopcd Ch r ist ia n tradit ion or c.:tlling.JcstLo; .son of Noah. btu both Noah a n d Adam cou nt as a n cestors ofJesus in Luke's geneal-

ogy (Luke 3:36. 38). \Vc may note h e re a significant .sah·ation-historical stalcmctlt concerning lite

virtuo us, murdered . son o r Adam (=Abel), found in Matt23:35 and Luke 11:51. that is, in the Sayings Source (Q): ~so that upon ro u may come all the r ighteous b lood shed on earth. rrom the blo od o r righteous Abel (Gen 4 :8. 10) to the b lood of Zech ar iah son of Bar·achiah ..."'411 This \'Crse is an extract rrom Kristcr Stettd:ahf. ~~b tthew." in />.vJk<'i. Ctmtmtnlm--r en t/u Wbi<'. t'd. Matthew Black and H. H. Kowlcr (Edinburgh: Nelson. 1962). 769-98. heri- 770-71. For this fu turistic eschatology, ~<'<' r>.blt 24::29- 31. (and its parnllds in Mark an d Luke). as wdl as Acb 2:20:3:20- 21. r. AdmiU('dly there is an allusion to Adam and E'·~ (unnamed) in Matt 19:4: ~Han: rou not r<"nd that the one \•·ho mad(' (lrli.wu) at the beginning ·made them m:tle a nd female?" Ho''~''Cr, thcidc:a or \.hri~nu second ma n or last Ad:un is a Pmdinc notion (J C'.or 15:45. 4 7). ~ H ere ''-e m:.aybric:ny notiu some of the J>roblcms conn«ted ,,·ith t11e reference to ~the blood of Zechariah son of8~uach i ah. whom you murdered bc:tw« n the: sanctuarr an d the altar" (Mall23:3Et). T hc-r<" is somC' ddlate a~ to which Zechariah is meant. 7..
!f.

101

tile clima x o f «h e woes ( Matthe w 23~ l.ukc I I) a nd ver y likel}' goes back to the lli.sto rical J esus. The verse reflecLo; a pe rspective of cscllato logic:.al jud gme nt in which the whole human h istory of uqjust .suffe ring . fro m Lhc fir.st 10 lhc last murde r o f the innocent in t he Hebre w Bible. will be scl r ig h t by Go d . The \'c r sc tries to e mb race the who le ofhib lic.al h i:>LO f }'· In th is respect it represents a preccd cnl in th e preaching o f J esus himself for t.hc co m p re he n sive h is to rical persp ective lh:'ll Matthe w attempts in h is gc n ca l o~;-y. But it takes it.o; start from Lhc slo r )' of Ad am, Ca in, and Ab el at lhc beginning of G e nesis. So Mallhc w knows 1he sto r y to-o. C\'en t houg h h e c hooses not to m e nt ion it in his gen ealogy. As we co n tinue to answe r the q u estion. whr d id Matthe w o m it t he first two stage..; in the s.che m e (Adam ~and Noah). we may also suggest a pedagog ical reaS<m . Adding the fi r st lh'O su :ps. e ve n with o n ly te n names in each of these h\'O sections. would lm vc made the gcnealog}' too long fo r Mollt hc w'.s taste. IL would have damaged his p atte rn of fOurlecn na mes per sectio n. as we ll a.s Ihe triadic p a n c rn. As the adage .sa)'s, ·All go od things come in t hrees.. (omu~ lrimtm jJ·nfrctum), so Matlhe''' loves lriads.2 ' Mo reove r. b revity is the soul o f wit, and m ;m y regard the gC"n e~dogy as to o long e \·e n in this b riefe r form . Anothe r r eason fo r t he o mis..o;io n o f th e first two stages m ight be i\ of sk ill fOr t heir more learned reade rs a n d copyist.o;- those inil iatcd into thC" professio n:]! sccrd s of the g u ild of scribes. These tesl.s h;owc p ro ve n <1 source of e ndless d elig ht a nd fascina lion to s tudious read ers down th rough Ihe centuries. These r cad C"r s a rC". ~1sked to a pply th eir backg round kno wledge of the Bib le and its ~l cco mpanri ng tradi· tio n to a p a n icula r compositio n. stoned to death in the courl of the Tcm/>lc by order of the king ,,·ho had been offended br his preaching. Some commentators t link that il is a third Z<:ch:triah. son or naris (or in somt< manuscripts. H:truch). kno\,·n from Josephus. j nm'Ml mu 4.5.4 ilNJ:~ .t--34 4 . Of these th r« options. probably the first fits best here, since Matthew rc:f ers l~,·kc in tllis chapter (23: ~. Ji') to the tradition that the propht·ts w\"re t illtl(mnlt~f ltildinll l.itrmturr lOG{1987) 423- :J5. ~~ Stcrnbe'P. Ptlrlir.f, 50- 56. We can comp;u·e what has lx-tu said of the nO\-clist Am honr Trollopc s style: "plain British boiled beer:'

102

Bttlll!dict 7: Fivimw. O.P.

Apocalyptic Origin of the Seven-Part Division of History? T his la..'>t p o int leads u.s natura II}' to the d ifficull question: how o ld is the: sc\'CO· age .sch e m e of h istory? Could Malthcw have known o f i t? Was it su fficient ly well kn own that he cou ld rea.o;onablr ex pect some o f his read ers to know a bout it a nd to .sec an a llusio n to it in his gen ealogy? Alread y in the 1920s. l'·. ml Billerbcck p roposed th at 1 Emx}/s Ten Week Apocal}'p.sc: was the do.o;cst pre-Christian parallel to Mau hew and h is most probable source.j 1 We will proceed as though t h is were correct. b tu wilh fear and trep id ation. given the d ifficul ties in d ating and determin ing the ICX I and tran slation of I /::.11och. To be sure . what is properlr characteristic o f the
Strack and Billerbc:ck. h~Jmnl'tltrlnmn /1/<'m'" Tr.dumml, 1.43- 45 (on Mau 1:17). ~ D.S. Ru.s.<~cll. T br Mrl.lrad <md Mefur~oj.frn•bll Apomlyplir( Philadd phia: Westminster, l964). 224-29: Paul Vol z.Jijdi.•rllr i·:JCIIIltrHol>.,·.n,rm Dmrid biJ :lkilN~ (TUbingen: Mohr, l9J6):j0licph Bon.sin~n. ''"lcl illittn.Jt~d((ism ;, tlu: 71111rtif.Jtt~u.• C/lri.d (New\'o rl: Holt. ]964). 20:>- 2!). On the implications of Dan 9:2·1-27 for messianism . $CC: Joseph A. Fitzmyer. TM 011r H'llo i.• l u Y

OnRt (Grand Rapid.s: Eerdmans. 2007). 00- 64. Mo~t of 1 l:n~XIl has been dated :lll}'\\'IH'r<' from 250

BCE to :,o CE. This long book is not ~l unitr that wa$ h·ritten at one date by om· author but the product of an Enoch ..schoor that continued into two morr works known 3$ S«m•d t:nor:lt and Tbird Enofll. T he' p~HL<; of Fir.d £11od• that most concc:rn us arc found in considerable fragments in Aramaic at Qumran , $0 ct•rtaiuty before 70 CE. a nd probablr c.om1>0scd around 170 BCE. Thc Aramaic frag· menu a re important bccau~c the complc:tc: text, presei'\'C'd only in Eth iopic (Ge'er.) has $UITcrcd some tt•xtua l cliu urbauce in the crucial chapters 9l and 93. Scholan han: long $Uspcctcd t h i ~ dislocation ~l n d rc:arnuged the d1a1)tcrs according!}'. '-' J.T. Milik. Tht' &oh tifl:'~torlt: Am.ml'lit' fjytg•ml~ (Oxford: Cla rendon. l976); G<.-orgc W. E. Nickelsburg. I E11od• 1: Jt C.u1.v:m.:ntttr.v u11 • • • I En~X11. r.lmpt. 1- 36: 81- 1011' (Ht"rnwncia; M in neapoli~: Fortn::s.s. 2001), :134 - 50: l.orr.n T. Stuckr.uhrud . 1 ~1/tJCII 9 1- W B (f'..onmH·ntari<.-s on Earlyj t"\vish Literature : Berlin: dc Gruytcr. 2007). 49- (52.

.\\

103 a uthor lhinks of the laslth ~e weeks ru; part or a .seventh age. If this inu~rpreta· Lion is correct. we would have in I Eu«h thc earliest trace of a scven·age sc:hcm c. [\'en if Lhi...; is correct. " 'e arc still compelled to note that the schem e is not here c xplicid)' l:nt..;C"d o n the seven days of cr eation, no r on Ps 90:4. nor on named bibli· cal h e roes. What is in p lay is the explicit u sc of the term I~N"'* · itself dcri\·cd from U1c .seven dars of c rcatjotl in bih lical revelation (Gen 1:l -2:4a). We come closer to our goal when we turn Lo the St-'<411d HooJ: of Bwxh (also known as Slat'<mic Eu«h). This '''or·k also bristles '''"ilh diffic u lties- linguistic, textual, ;md chronological. Thoug h the existing tmmuscrip tl> a re mcdicval. the priestly concerns c\•ident in the tcxl lead som e scholars to date the origl· mll composition to the time when 1he tem p le was still stand ing in J e rusalem, tha t is. sometime before Matthew's Gospel was wriHen. The book e xists in two forms or recen sions. In one of these we find
Early Ch ristian Use of the Seven-Age Scheme Outside o f the New Testament, lhe earliest Christia n attestation of 1he seven· age scheme occurs in a c urio us work of th e m id second century, the letter attr ibuted to Sl. 1\;~rnabas (Ut: Banr. 15:4) .36 4

.

Pay. aucnl ion. c hildren, w what he savs: ~ H e fini shed in six days . .. (Gc::n 2:2 LXX). J.Je is saying lhal in six lhousand rears Lhc Lord will fin ish C\'cryLhing. ,.; 1'hi$ quotation a nd tl1e next arc from Fr:tnd$ I. Anderse-n. ~2 (Slavonic Apocalrpsc or) Enoch," in Old Tr:rlllJII•'"' Pu-•tdl'pigrnphu. r.d. J amr-s. H. Charlesworth. 2 \'Ob (New Yort: Ooublcdar. )983- 1985}. 1.91-213. hC"rc 1.156: c:f. Andrt'i Orlm·. f'rmrr :\f~tJrnlyftlkbm lo llfplc:mcnt 114; Lcideu: Brill. 2007). ~ Rolx-n M. Grant 1'1 Ill.. Tltr .A.~vttdir filll•.m~. 6 vols (Nt•w York Nd~on. 1965) ::1.128. A simi· Jar scheme ap(X'ars in St. Ju.stin. J>illlt~Kur ra,illt TIJ'fJim Sl A ; St. lrenacus. ,.,d~,.,ll',t.r /fM,~:u-~o 5.28.3: Sl. Hippolrtu~. CtnN"'""'"'.'' tm Ot:rnil'l 4.23: St. Clement of Ale-xandria. Shl1mtrtd~ 6. l:H- 45.

104

Bttlll!dict 7: Fivimw. O.P.

For with hi m the ·d:•y" signifies :• thousand years. And he be~us m e witness (on this point) saying: HHe hold . a d ay of the Lord shall be as a tho usa nd years"' (cf. Ps 90:4). The refOre. child ren, · in six days ..- in six thousand }'Cars··en-ryl hing.. will he fin ished" (i.e .. I he uni\·crse wi11 arrive at iLo; term). Here once again we sec the scven agc scheme. b ased on the same combination ofbiblicaltex!S, bUl witho u t !he labeling of the ages ;u:cording 10 biblical fig· u res or even ts. We ahnosl h:n-c the impression that Matth ew is o rig inal in h is connecting 1he biblical period s wilh named fig llrcs and cvent.s. Hut at least one major church fa th er. St. Augustine of H ippo (354-430). undcrsiOod the fu ll sch e m e und erlying M::allhew's genealogy. In th e time of testing a fle r Abric had sacked Rome (410 CE) <m d lhe Empire in the West was lo tlc1·ing 1oward ils collap se. Augustine \HOle his enormous. rambling meditation on ancient h islory in the light of Ch r istia n fa ith. He tried to make sense of it all in his nin c-hundred·p age CiiJ' of God. Augustjne refers cxplicilly to Matthew•s scheme and completed it with the fi rst two stages. from Adam to Noa h a nd from Noah to Ab rah am. In Books 19- 22 of 111~ City ofGod, Augustine Lreats carefully the m
This Sabbath :<:hall :tp pear still more clearly if we count the ages as d;')'S, in accordan ce with Lhc period s o f tim e dcfmed in Scripture . for thai pe r iod will be fOund to be th cse\'C'Ilth . The first age. as the fi rst d ay. extends from Ad am to the deluge: the second from the deluge to Abraha m. equaling Lhc firs l. not in length of time. b ut in the number of generations. I he re be ing ten in each. From Abraha m Lo the ad\"Cill of Christ then: arc. as the ev-ang elist MaLLhcw calcul;ttes. three periods, in each of which a re JOurtcen gen erations- one period f ro m Ab mh;un to David. a second from David to the ctptivity. a third from the captivity to the bir lh ofChristin the Aesh. The re arc thus five ages in all. The sixth is now pas..o;ing. and cannot be m easurc:d by any number o f genera tions. as i1 has been said. "" It i.s nol fO r rou to k n ow the times. which the F:Hh c r hath p ul in His own p<>wcr" (Acts 1:7). Aflcr the p eriod G<>d .shall rest as on 1he se,•cnt h dar. when l-Ie shall gin: us (wh o shall be 1he sc\'Cnth day) re.o;t in Himself. But the re is n<>t n ow space 10 treat of 1hcse ages: suffice

~·

St. Augustine, ·nu: C:ity tifGt~d.t..rnll.Sl. Marcus Dods (New York: Modern Library. 19.)5). 867. a . Oriii'IYJ d.- St Augmlhl, tome 37. l A r it.: d.: /)i.-,1. lines 19-22. ed. Gusi<W"<' lbrdy (~ ri$: Desci(.(" de Brouwer, l960): R.A. Markus, Srtt<"ltlum: Ni.~to•y tmd s,ri.-IJ ;,, tlu Thl'IJiogJ tifSt. :ht;tuJtim'l (Cambridge: Cambridge Uni,"<'"rsitr Press, 1970): W.G. Mosl. Sffi11t ;l llg•utinl':, / P Cilntrllt' lki (Washinglon. D.C.: Calholic Uniw:rsil)" or America Pn::ss. l949).

105

it 10 sar lhal t he sevent h sh all be our Sabbalh. which shall be bro ught loa close. not by an even ing. but h}' t he Lord 's day, :'IS an eighth an d ctcrn;tl d ay. consc::c:ratcd br t he resurrection o f C hrist. :lnd prifiguringthc ct<.'rma1 repose n ol only of the spiril. but also of the bo d )'. The re we s hall rest a nd sec . .sec a n d !ewe:. love a nd pra ise. This is wh:'ll shall be in t he e nd without e nd. For what othe r end do we p ropose to o u rselves th:m to attain to the kin gdom o f which there is no e nd? I think I have no w. by God 's help, disch:•rgcd m y o b li· g atio n in wri1 ing this l:uge ,,·o rk. Let !ho se wh o think I have said too little. o r those \Vho think J h ave said to o muc h . fo rg ive m e: and le t those who th ink I ha\'C said j ust e noug h j o in me in g iving thanks to God. Amen. August in e. we obsen•e . reckon s len gen e ratio n s in th~ fi rst two stagC":s, a nd (JOIIowing ~'1:\U hew) fourteen in the n~xl thrcc.n \ '\t'c m il)' also no te h ere in pa ssin g thal t he gr~at l i iC.span of Adam. 930 rc~m; according co Gen 5:5. :•hno st a m ounts to a m ille n n ium in itself. With reg<m :l to t h is c oncluding pas.•mge from Augwa inc. ,,,·o m;,1in co m· m e n ts a re in order, o n e p ositi\'t':, o n e n egati\'~. We sec first t hat this g re;tt La ti n c hurch father was a b le, th a n ks to h is concen l . to und ersta nd the even ts of his· to r y. includ ing e\'ents durin g wh ic h he was living (like the Vand a l:<;' siege oChis city of Hippo). in I he ligh t o r fa ith g u id e d by biblica i i'CVCI:uion. He n ce he was able Lo compre h e n d t he Cull s c ns~ of Matthe w's gen ealogical sch e m e bette r tha n a ny othe r early C luisti:tn known to me. To his c re d it. he saw that M:Hthc w im plied the first two stag<"s e\'t:ll if he did n o t say so e xp liciUy. On the n cgati\'e side. due t.o his n eo-P I ~l ton i c e xagger a ted spiritualiz::1tion , and d espite h is bes1 efforts to o vercom e h is nco-Plato n is m through faith in the incarnat ion of 1he \1\''ord , he de,·eloped , toward the e nd of h is lire. a horror in regard to a mille nnia! k ingdom o n e arth (0 Pciv. Dt'i. 20.7). That is wh y h e b lu rs so subUr the seve nth d ay in the sch eme wit h th e e ighth d ay. In fa irness le t it be added that by including the p hrase "Prt!flguri11gl h e e te rnal repose" he m eam to sa)' that t he sc\'e nth day on e a rth . the m illennia! kingdom. pr~figa~?t>.S the eternaii'C1it o f the eighth d ay in heave n , than ks to its fu lfi llment of G od's inte n tio n ror human h is Lory-n:n n dy. justicc. peace. a n d j O}' ( Ro m 14: 17). If 1h a t is Augustine's m ean ing. then n o criticism is calle d fo r. Certainly in his ear lie r pre a ching (Serm o n 259. PL 38:1 197- 98). Aug usl in e d oes h o ld for a mil le nnia! Kingdom on e:trth. lt is usua lly t hought th ~at he d ropp e d I h is \'i<"w in Tbe City~?( God.';fiJ But th is m ay no t be corre ct. If so. then no n egative cri1ic is m applies. George root Moore. '' Fourteen Generations: 490 YcarJ>: An Expl:anation oflhe Gc:ncalogr ofJesus," tfruw;rd 'l'hrologir.tll N.-.,;~:W 14 ( 192 I) 97-10 3, here 196. Moore mentions the view of Cor nelius Jansen thai one h~al of the genealogr is to show thai the Me.s..siah a rrived at the right time. foreseen b)· biblical proP.hccr. " ·\e;~n D~~!elo•~ · Tlu BiiJI.· rmd thf' l.it11rg)' (Notre Dame. IN: llni\'c:nity of Notre Dame Pre.». j!o;

9:>6}, _ l.:.- 86.

106

Bttlll!dict 7: Fivimw. O.P.

To be su n~ . AugusLine was also a genius of huma n dcvclopmcnL:'l psrcho l· ogy a nd Christian spirituality. II is n ot surprising, t he refOre. that h e also applies the seven-age s.chcmc to h i.s own lift- and t hus lo the lin ·s o f othe rs: infa n q. c h ildhood , adolescen ce. roung adulthood , m ature adult hood. ded in e. and o ld age. This seve n-age schem e underlies t he th irteen books o f Aug ust inc's Confonious.'u ll a lso u nderlies 1h e .str ucw rc of Books 15- 22 of 11u City of God. ~ 1 This doub le usc of the seven-age scheme. for personal growth and d e,•dopment as well as for understand ing wo rld h istor y. .sh0\1/'S its fun d:un cntal fruitfu lness. Jn th is way 1\•laHhew's gcn calogr becomes mc:m ingfu l even for o ur .spiritual lives. At least since Denis the Areopagite (sixth century C£.), C h ristian spirituality has p resented t he life o f the graced soul accord ing to a three-age .sch eme: purgative. illuminative. unitive - or. more b iblically. beginne rs. p roficie nt. perfect. Th is .schem e h;t.s influe nced b01 h C h ristian a nd J ewish bcl i ever:s .-1 ~

Commentators from 1907 to 2007 My thc..o>is is d ear: Mauhcw in 1:17 is p roviding <m e xtract f rom a larger precx isLing wo rld week scheme of seven· I ho usa nd -ycar periods ;,san outline of a th eo1o~'1' o f h i.story. Let us 110\\' look at some commentaries p ublish ed in 19072 007 (mo stly Germ a n ). to see h ow 1hey u n derstand Mall hew's genealogy. Johann es \ll,!eiss. ~ll t he beginning of lhc twentieth cenHtry. p roposes thai Matthew•s: three sets of fou rteen gen cr.\lions can be u nd erstood as describing a pre p ar ation. a .splend or. and a decline. The task of the genealogy is to bring fo r th Lhc Messia h .•~ E rich Klosterma nn rccogni7.es a p rinciple o f a week ( l·hbdomadtmpri·nzip) or set of SC\'Cn s. He ob.ser\'CS that the re arc ten generaLions from Ad;utl to Koah accord ing to Gcn 5: l-.;'}2 and te n generatio ns from Noah to Abra h am accord ing to Gen 11:10- 26. This is p icked up by t he rabbinic tt•x t Mi.fhtutlr , \bo/5:2-.;'J. a nd later by Augustine. as we h a\'e .secn:1•1 Paul Billcrbec k stales thal whal carlic:r gen eral ions thought a n d taug hL about t ht~ ti me of arrival of the ~·4es.s i :t h is fu lfi lied in Jesus . ~;.

Ill 11

D. Donee!, Ml :an mcmoriae da n~ tes Col tfcssion~: ltrv•t.. rl..~ Etude twg•u.tin•n~ .33 (l987) 49- 69. Augusle Luneau. Ni..toif7' tilt sulut rhr- IN l'h n d .. rt:gu.,..: /...a tlt>elrim: tJ,., rigi'.~ d•~ rrumtl'" (ThCologk Hil'lelriquc: ?: Paris: 8t"auchesue. 1964). The ma in (>"Usages in Augu~line are /Jr ri1,. JJ<"i 16:-1:~~

1

~

15:1 a nd 9; 1?:12: ?0:19 a nd 2:J: ?2:7.

Benedict T. Vi,·iano. ·synagogues and Spiritu:alilF The Case or Udh Alfa ." in jtw•u und M.-hrol"KJ' cd. James H. Ch arl ~wort h (Gmnd Rapids. Ml : Ecrdm:ans, '2006). 22.3- JS. u Johan nes \\'ds.1, .\tutt/liiu.•·ho~mu•ntnr (GOitiugcn: Vandcnhocck & RU(>I"t.'(ht. 1907), 232-.34. u Erich Kloslcrmann. Mt~Uitii•u·Kt~•mt?l tm· (Tftbiugen: .Mohr. 1927). l - 6. I> Strack and Billcrbcck. h"m.ou""'lfllr ::tur< ,\ "rt.um "fio.
107 Adolf Sch laller rem arks that th~ n u m e r ical rhyLhm for Matthew is a sign o f d iYine gove mmenl of all eve nts. Such thinking had been e n couraged by Dan iel who d e.scr ibcd lhe Lime b el\,•een the Ex ile a n d the Pr omist' as seventy weeks ( Dan 9 :24- 27 ). Sch laltc r also n otes t h at the m b bis e mphasize th at m:.Uor ~vents in salvation h istory oflen occur on the sam e d ay of the year. For exam· pic. in the ir in terp retation of Exod I2:42 . the rab bis :wd T a rgtun isL-: sa y that on th e fo urtcenlh dar of 1h e month of Nisan t he cre:'ltion. the bind ing of Isaac. the exo dus fro m Egypt. a n d the futu re arrival o f 1he Messiah all occur. On 1he n inth of Ab the two destructions ofJerusalcm and its te mple occ ur. ~" Joach im Gn ilka also verifies th at beh ind th e a r lifkia ll)' constr ucted sym· mel ry lu r ks a p la n of God. The play '''ith numbcr:s m c:Uls that God g u id es h istory to its in1cnd cd g oa l. a,.,.;Jtolog;t'al{y. .J~s us born o f Mary is the awaited C h rist. Ecdt'siologicaiJJ. the h istory of the People of God is to be conceived as a h istory of p romise. Gnilka recogn izes th~ ro le of Enoch 's world week. b UL adds consideratio n of the twice fo u rteen da}'S of the lun a r cale n d a r as well as of the He brew gem atria valu e of fourtc~n as the nu mbe r fo r David ." The charactc r islic feature o f Mall hew's gen ealogy is the penel ration of I he m es· sia n ic pro m ise fu lfill ed in J esus with th e h istory of th<' peop le o f Isr ael: "This penetration validates the u n iversality of the lllt$Sia n ic prom ise. because o f its start wit h Abrah a m a n d becau se o f its m e n lion of the fo u r women. but a lso it poin ts 10 the traces of God's g u id ance of h i:storr. Despite m:my o ppositions and low p o ints. it reach es iL-: goal." T h e h islOr ical descent of J esus f rom the Jewish people is w d ay largely und isp uted . Wh e reas Na1.i-era <:xegcsi.s tried in vain to p ro ve that .Jesus \v
1'' Adolr Schlatte-r. D f'" t-:attmJ.."'Ii•.t MtJUI/iiou (Stuttgar t: Calwa, l92lJ). 6--i'. 1; In H ebr~w reckoning. the name David (D-V-0) m:Lybc undcNtood as al'l"ries or numbers:

111

0 = 4: V = 6: D = 4: total= 14. j o..1.chim G1lilka. !Nr.\ MaJihiirunttmgo'l imrt. 2 vols (J' re iburg: Herder-. ]lJSG-1988). l .l l -14.

Bttlll!dict 7: Fivimw. O.P.

lOS d~eply

m a r ked Matth e w (cf. Dan 11:3-6). The re is a ··providential d esign" (in the wo rds o f Do na ld H agn e r). M
111

;o ;,e ~

Peter Fiedler. MaJtlliius (Stuttgart: Kohlhanmwr. 200!1).

Ulrich Lm:. Mtdlluw 1- 7 (Hernwncia: Miunra1>01is: Fort rc~. 2007). 8:>-SS.

Davie' and Allison, Sl /ll((ttk•·f"· 1. 185- 88.

Ka ri·H ci n r ich O.s.uucyer. Ocr St~l m m~;tu m de$ Vc rhcissencn: Th('ologi.sc he I mplikatione n dcr Name n und 1...1hk n in ML l.l- 17. N<'w ·r.-Jtfl mrnt Studia 46 (2000). 175--92. M

((}g

Conclusions From the.o;c gleanings in the works of <:arli<"r comm c nt.;ttor.s. we may draw ll f(:,.,. molin conclusions. The fi rst is c h r istological. The genealogy not o n ly presents J esus as lruc king ;Uld son of David . b ut also as priest in som e sense (if Ostmcrcr is to be trusted). J esus as p rophet is not so clearlr emphasized he re. J e.o;w; is rather presented as the fu lfillment of the prophets' hopes tOr an anointed s:wio r. To be .sure . .Jesus :t.s pro phel will com e later in Matthew (e.g .. M:nt 12:17-2 1, 39-41)- a nd especially in J ohn's c n m}' Ch ri.stology and in his development o()c.sus a.s the pro phcL like Moses ( Ocut IS: 18). Is J esus implicit ly the Dan ielic d ivine Son of M:m in the brene:doo1·? This depends upon Lhc m issing fou rteent h name in the third set of the genealogy. Theor etic:.;tlly this o m ission could be due to error or cardes.o;ness o r due to the fact that Mathew onlr IOund th irteen names in his source and he was too scrupulous to invent a fourteenth ..;.:, It is better. howc,•e r. 10 resp('ct the intelligence and competence o f I he author Mallhcw who cl.o;ewhe1·c shows signs of m et iculous care in composition . That is why S1e ndah l's solut ion is so a uractive. His sugge~tion is that the mis..o;ing fo urteenth mu n c is !he future coming Son of Man. It is 1h cologic.ally sal isfying because the Iitle mar be understood as a d i,·ine o ne and it corresponds to a docume nta ble inte rest br Mauhew in th e Son of Man a.s linked with the Kingdom of God. Ecclesiologically. the lWO d o minant titles Son of oa,·id and Son of Abraham ( Matt 1:1) can be unp acked in this way. The Son o fD:wid title connect...; j esus with a historic people. the uniu~d kingdom o fJu d ah and Israel, the sm u h and the north. (The quest fo r the reunion of the two kingdom s is the ecume nical p roblem specific to the Hebrew Bib le.) Jesus comc.s with a people, the p eople of God. and at the moment o f h is arriYal he is large!}' confined to the J e wish people. But the title Son of Abmham suggests a n expanding horizon whereby the people of God a rc widened to includ e all the nations as they receive J csw•• m essage and becom e h is disciples. This is the p rogressive expansion that occurs in the Gospe l iLo;eJf. The re.o;tricl ion oft lle m issiOil only to the lost sheep of the ho u,..;c of Israel (Mall J0:5- 6: 1.:,:24) fina lly g i"es way w the grc-.lt commission to all the nations (Mall 28:18- 20).

;..' Oa\'ies and Allison. Sl MattJu-r.... 1.18:.-ss.

Chapter 8

l'vlatth ew's Nativity Stories: Historical and Theological Questions for Today's Readers Berna rd P. Robinson

Mallhc,,".s in fanq nar mtiw is .sdd o m considered on its own . without reference to Lu ke's. W hen. howe\'er. it is so read . it poses a number of proble m s a nd is in some ways d iffic u lt for the m od ern reader to assimilate. Amo11g its most d iffic:ult asp ects lOr to d ay•s readers arc its m ;•le-cente rcd (an droccn tr ic) a pproach a nd its heavr reliance on quotations f rom the O ld Tcst .-1ment ("fonnula cita tions"). I p ro p ose first to d iscu.o;s 1he r elations hip, if any. of Mall hew's in fancy story l.o Lu ke's and their gen re. The n I shall n ote the :ln droccntric characte r of the n armti\'C e pisod es. a n d afte1· that I shall e xamin e c~lch of the m in tu rn in order to try to catch their d rifL AftC"r a fCw observations on Matlhcw•s ·· fo rm u la cit.;tl.ions" and o n h is use of the O ld Testam ent generall)' (he "quotes the O T ;u least twice a,..; often a.s an}' o ther Gospel writc r.,).1 also on h is usc of foreshadowing tech n iques. I .shall proceed to a con clusion. Atlhc o utset, though. it mar b e u sefu l to sci. out what I take to he the main emphases in Man hew's in fane)' narral.iYe. • The: life ofJ esus. f rom h is conception onward, h a ppened according l.o the ScripLurcs: • J esus is Oa vidic a nd resumes the h istor y o f 1h e J ewis h people: • J esus. not ~ H erod the king" (2:1, 3. 9), is Israel's I me king- the Messiah s.on of David (2:2. 6): • J esus is a sorl o f new Moses who is set 10 con duct a greate r rescue (or exodus) th :m Mo..o;cs (2:15): • J esus is God 's p resen ce :tm o ng hum:tn beings. Im manuel. the savior of h is people; • H is very conception was God's work (1 :20- 23); • In his beginning \\"as h is end . since the birth stor ies anticipate later evenLs in h is m in istry and berond . 1 John

Nolland. T/u l'rlArpri lJ/MaJI!J.:~••. A eo....,_.,,,n:r tm tit<' Gr,.dl To:/ (NlGTC: Grand R~lpids: Eerdnmns/ 81c:tchl<:y: Paternoster. 2005) 29. In this chaptc:r all biblical tran..;l:ation! arc mr

own.

Ill

Compa ring Matthew and Luke The diOCre nccs between the infa n q stories fOu nd in Matl hew a nd l..t1kc (I he o n I}· gospe ls to have such m:Hcr ial) a rc str ik in g. The two C"\'-an g elists agree in h a,•ingjcsus born in Be thle hem in the days o f H e rod the Great (d . 4 BCE); in naming Mar)•'s husb a nd as J osep h and ~lltrihuting to him David ic d escen t (throug h Solomon accord ing to Mau 1:6. b Ul in Luke 3 :31 through Nat h a n) but in d enyingjo sc ph•s b io logical paternity o (Jcsus; and in treating the nal i,·ity as divinely e ffected.? But they seem to agree o n little else . Mall hew has no census, no .shepherds. and no Presentatio n in the Temple. whereas Luke says noth ing a bo ut n1:•gi, a Aight into and relum f ro m Eb•-ypt, or a massac re or bab ies. Mallhe w h as J esus bom in a house in BeLh lchem, where. he im plies. J osep h has h is home at the Lime. while in Luke J oseph is a reside nt o fKaza rcth a nd the Bethle he m m a nger will presumably be in the public ··inn" (a kJum or caravanserai). In M:tll hcw an un n ~~mcd angel \'isitsJoscph after the conception and sim i lartr n a meless angels a ppear to him o n two subseque n t occasions . whereas in Luke Gabriel \'isits Mary be fore lh c conception. Verbal ag reem ents e xist (e.g .. in the usc of the '''ords for }uJJ.r .fjJ;r it f"•itho ut a r t ide: a nd not personifiedj. w~rgiu. b~lroth. a n d find) but lhcr arc fe w in numbe r. It is possib le to argue that Luke knew and rcwmte Ma tth ew's account (cha ngin g mag i to shepherds a n d recasting t he account of the flig ht into Egypt as a story of.Joscph and Mary migrating . tOr the purp oses of the census. from Na'l.aret h to Bethl ehem);~ or ihat Matthew k n ew and re wo rked some of the m:Herial that end ed u p in Luke's acco unl. 4 b ut if so the reh ~~sh i ng of the narratiYe..o; will h:wc been rathe r substantial. The opin ion favored by most scholars is th a t! he I wo infancy accounts arc independ e nt of each othe1·.

Genre of the Narrative If Matthew•s swries a re indeed independent o f Luke's. in my j u dgment it would b e r ash to p lace too much c red e n ce in the histo r icity of two accounLs th a t a rc so very diffe re nt, e xcept p<"rhaps in re.spcct of th e d e tails that t he}'

For a li.st of more t han twenl\' par.~ llc:ls between Matthew's inf:mcv narratiw· and l.uk.e's, se~ l~atricia ~lcDonald. ·R<'S<"mblanc<" lktwccn Matthew 1-2 ~ind Luke 1-2." in the :ap1> l'omdigm, 2 \'Ob (jSNT Supplement 20: ShefTidd: Sheffield Academic Press. 1989}. I. 22, 246-!);,; J,ohn Dn•rr. ·lhtditkm twd lk•iJp• i11 l.ollr.t:'.t c;,~.~pd: ' ' Stmty i 11 J>:m'ly Chri.dirm N iJtMi<>gmplly {London: Darton. Longman & Todd. 1976), 120-73 ("Using i\lauhe\•'"). e.sp. 12J-28. 1 So Robert H, Gundrr. M atf/J,·n•. :\ Ctwrlfl"'"UI':t <>II N i l Htmdb«>lr for a Mixrd ClulTrll Ufld~:r Pr'nH"It tilm. $C'Cond cdn (Grand Rapids: Ecrdmans. 1994). 26. 32. ;,•1. t

112

Bt'rturrd P. Robinson

share. If. on the oth~r h a n d . a d egree or editing of o n e lr.tdition by the author of th e o ther has been at work. th e freedom with which he will h ave resh ;lpcd the m ateri:tl suggc:sLo; t h at h e will himsclr ha n : rcali1.cd 1h at h e was gene ra lly not d ealing in hard h istorical data . Eithe r way. the refOre. readers wi11 be well ad,,iscd to b~ cautious about positin g a h igh level o r h istoricity. Allcmp Ls arc m ade from lim e to lim e to take both the M a ll h c~m and Ihe Lu kan nar r.tli\'CS as su bstant ially histor ical (Ih e one perhaps prcservingJoscph '.s mem o r ies. Lhc other Ma ry's- as if they arc n ot likely to h:we compared n otcs) and to h:umon izc I he m , b ut such a u c m p ls a rc in m y \'icw ve il' p roble matic. If. as ' ''C read in Mallhe w. a flCr a visit from I he magi Joseph took the famitr lo Egypt until I h e d<'!ath of He rod. t he Lukan Pr<'!s.cn lation in th e Te m p le a fte r forty days. a nd I he touching .stori<'!s abo ut Sitn<'!on and Anna, m ay begin to loo k \·cry sh aky fro m a historical perspective'!. Some have sugge.sled that the m:tgi arrived up to a )'ear afl<'!l' the nativity; o thers that lh<'! famil}' fl ed to Egypt. then returned to Bet hlehe m a nd .Jentsalcm before fi m1ll)' proceed ing to Nazareth. T o my m ind. the re is an air of d espe ration about such p•·oposals. If we take Malt hew's accounl on i L~ O\VU . we sh all han'> to say that no ne o f it.,.; episodes (discovery of the p regn anc:y; ma rriage: \'isil of t he magi: fl ig ht into Egypt; m assacre: r<'!turn fro m Egypt) i.s in .sub stan ce impossible. but a numbe r of d e tails arc histor ically vcr}' suspect. Fo r <'!Xamplc. e\'en if we can accommo · date ourselves to the id ea that .Joseph 's actions were o n three occasions acltt· ated b)' a h e;wen l)' v isitant. ( ma ny readers today. believers as wd l as u nbelie vers. regard the a ng elopha n y as a l iu~a·ary dc:v ice to s ig nal! h at e n :nts a re to be inte r· p re ted as the effects of d ivin e provid<'!nce). a Herod who truslS the m agi to reporL b ack to h im. a nd a star that c;m pinpoint o n e p artic u lar h o use \v-iii p robahl)' strain o u r credulitr. In my analysis. il is likely that Mall hew's unde r· stand ing of the d e mands of a retelling of Mark's .Jesus·story d id not preclud~ I he c reation or fic litious .stories th at woutd a n est to deeper truth.,.; than t ho.s~ of facLU al h isloricity: p robab le ex am ples {accordin g to m a n y .scho lars) arc h is ta les of Pilate's \V"'.tshing of h is hand s (27:24-25). of the: role of t he J e wis h high p r iests in J esus' bu rial (27:62- 6 6: 28: 11- 15). and of t he appearance of.Jesus t.o the Twdv<'! on a mountain in Galilee (28: 16 - 20).:; On 1h e oth<'!r h :md. it cou ld a lso be a rgued that it s l r.t.ins credu liLy to .sup· pose Mall hew or h is .source(s) to h ave simplr con coc:lcd the .slories of I h e irregular b in h. the com ing of the m agi. the m assacre of child re n. a n d a j our· n cy to and from Egypt. If indeed h e had no sou rces to turn to. as Mic hael Gouldcr b elieves, he will have had Lo compo se the b u lk of the m aterial by way of creati,·e l'efl cction o n Old Tesl:-unent a n d J e wish traditions.'- Most sch o lars. ho we\'Cr. do assum e that t here were: sources. Some think th:u Matthew took ~ &-e Ulrich tuz.. St11dit:.f itt .\ltltthn o•.

58-60. r. Gouldcr. M itbr.ul•. 2'18-42.

trans. Rosemary Selle (Gr.md Ra pids: F.crdmans. 200:>),

o ver a n umb e r of rath~r di sparat~ oml trad itions a nd wrote t hem up into a contin u ous n arrati\'C. Others argu ~ Lh:ll he inherited and ed ited a contin uous nar r:ui,·e. wh ether oral o r wrillcn.7 T h e infa n cy n arratives arc sometimes called m id rash. b ut ahhough !hey sh are m any features with thatjewish gen re. ther d iffCr in a n imporla nt respect: m idrash is an imagin ali\·e. c-reat i v~ . fOrm of exegesis of earlie r mate r ial. Althoug h Malt hew draw':S free ly on O ld Testament material in the creative '":tY characte ris tic of m idrash. his aim was not to explain what h e thought Isa iah or J e remiah m eant. H ~ W:lS co nce rned rather to gi v~ an account of t h~ b irth ofJ~sus Ch r i.sl. Michael D. Gouldc r, having origin ally spoke n of the infancy nar r:Ui\'C:,o; as m idra.sh. J:ttte rly. in his 1989 book on Luke, c h aracte rized th~ir genre as ..e m b roidery.lt$ I sh all use the term ··creat ive historiography" lll)'Self. since to my ear it sounds less pejora l i\'~. Some scholars h ave. how~v~r. d e n ied th at ~h lth cw's in f:o111cy n arrati\'c cmplors c r~ati\'e h istoriography. C h :•rlcs L. Quarles. fo r instance. " 'h ile accepting th:tl the Ne'" Testamen t writers -a ffi rmed a n d u tilized r abbin ic m etho d s of scriptural inlerprct:ttion,"' says that *this docs not impl}' that !he'!)' would reg:trd c reati\'c h istoriogmph)' as a rc."Cogni1..cd and acceptable m ode of communication."!' Creat iw h istoriographr is n ot. h e claims. to b e found in the O ld Testament. the :-.lew Testament. o r such .J~wish sources as J osephus. Pseudo-Philo. the Gem:si.JApocryphon a n d ]ubi/us, for whe n the writers depa rted fro m their primary sou rc~s it '''as n o t because they we re reso 1·ting to i1wention b ut because 1h ey ,,·ere d mwin g on o th<:r sources, written :Uld oral. (Th is seems very ten dcnt ious.) Th~ first oc:curr~nce o f a '"hole book ,,:ith 1h e chancter of crc:•t iYe h istoriogr;•ph)'. he claims. i.s to be found in the m iddle of I h e .second centuq • CE in th e Protevtmgt'li-um !Jjjamt'S (an apocrrphal work). Crc:lli\'c hisloriogmph}' is. he thin ks. precisely the son of m ate r ial denou nced undt•r tlte d esig n ation o f "m ytJ1s" in the late r New Testament e p istles ( I Tim 4:6- 7: T il us 1:14: 2 Pet 1:16). I a m not convinced. Quarles is perh aps constrain ed by h is commitme nt lo verbal inerra n cy. expressed in h is statem e n t: "The essen tial dismissal o f t he biblic:tl record of the historical J esus throug h a pplicatio ns o f m id rash criticism d emonstrates that u ltimately m idntsh crit icism is incomp:'lt· iblc wilh evangelical fa ith ... 1" H)' contrast \v-ith Quarles, I wo u ld suggest that what Mall hew is d o ing is pre· cisely creat ive historiograph y. Such ways of writ ing we re not con fined in the

Oral sources. :Kcording to W.l). l);_wies and Dale C. Allison . Tlu- Gl.o.rFt A<m•v/i,•g lt1 Smo.t ,\tutt/1.-nr, J \'Ob (ICC: Edinlnugh: T&'f Clart. 1988-97), I. (92- 95. \\'ritl('ll source-s. accord-

ing to Raymond E. Brown. 11v: Hirth tift/lr M n.•iult. A Com••u•nt((ry "" t/Jr lnjumy N11rmth~s i11 ,\ ft;ti/IJ'n•
Bt'rturrd P. Robinson

114

ancient world to Lhc J ews. When Virgil c.am c- to write the At"neid. his g reat epic about the origins of Rome. h e b egan with the trad itions Lh;H m;my Roma n s were d escend ed from Tn~-;ms. and that the ruling Emperor. Augustus. was a descendant of Aeneas. He d ecid ed Louse Homer's two great epics to g ive shape lo his O'''ll, a n d so Bo ok...; 1-6 we re consLruclcd a.s an Ody.wy (wanderi ngs) a nd 7-12 as an /liltd (ballles). Bu1 he faced a problem when he g o t Ae n eas and h is comp a n ions to haly. I.Je brou g h1 1he m to th e district called Latium. following lr.tditio n , b ut tradit ion (as in Cato the ~ldcr's now-lo st 1-/ist-OI)' of Romt>) said Ih at Latius. the Ki ng. ''"as k illed by the Troj;ms. That the a n cestor and namesake or the Lal ins should have b(:cn killed by th e Trc-~ans \\'":\S unacceptable. and Virgil fo und h imself driven to the exped ient of making king Latius an cld erl)' and inciTcctivc ruler. who looks on unhappily as younger and m o re violent m en d o the fig hting. At th e end of the Atrtlt"id he is .still alive. to make a un ion with Aenc.·as.11 \ 'V h at Virgil was doing was very .sim ilar to wh:-1.t m a n y b ib lical write rs d id in retelling a stor-y: they m:\de it fit beu e r. on t he ground that its meaning. its lllt$sage. was more impo rtant than the historicity o f all its details . The most obvio us else of such c.reatin :· historiography is I he C h ronicler. H is source (2 Kgs 21) told . fOr example. how bad King Manassch had reigned for fi fty-fin.: rears despite the fact that h e ··sh ed n :ry much innocent b lood. till he had fi lled .Jerusalem f rom one e nd to another" (2 Kgs 2 1: 16). Not a very edifring story. in th e Chronicler's view (he held an o ld -fashioned belief in - short-range re wards a nd punishments'").u He therefOre rewrote the story. making it into a muc h more fitting vehicle for theology.u Ma n assch was a g reat sinner, and for this he was p unished. being hauled on· by the Assyri:m s into exile in B.a bylon, as an object-lesson to the lsraditc.'i. As a further exa mple. I he C hronicler made h im repent while in B~t b)'lo n. and had YHWH bring h im back to Palestine (2 Chr 33:1 1- 13). ManassC"h thus fo reshad owed the fate o f the people. A cas~ of creative h istoriography closer st ill to the- Gospel inf.lllcy narra.· t.i,·cs appears in th e trcal m c n t of the infanC)' of Moses by J osephus, Philo. a nd Pseudo-Philo.11 1n his.4nlitjuili4'softlur.ft<ws•.JosC"phus has an annunciation story. in '\'h ic h God appears in a dream to Moses' father to fO retell his birth a nd that of Aaron. a nd speaks of his futm·c g reatness (A :f. 2.210- 16). J osephus gives Pha raoh 's daug hte r a name (Thcrmuthis). a nd tells us that the boy was 11

J:tspcr Grirfin. Wrgil (l'a.st Mastc:rs: Oxford: Ox lOrd Unin'!rsit)' l'rc:ss. 1986}. 64. Robe rt North. 1-2 Chronk.lc:.s .~ in f"mnu• Ribliml CoNWll'ntury. cd. Raymond E. Brown ...r nl. (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall. r96S). 402-26. her< 405 . ., Rob99- 000. I?

M

11 .5 unusually handsome and precocious (.-lJ. 2.230). I.J ~ also reco unts a slory o f ho w whe n th ~ Pharaoh playfully ptll h is crown on the infant Moses' head . I h e child-foreshadowin g later events-threw it to I he ground and lmd o n it (.4:f. 2 .233). It is in teresting 10 no te thai. a pa rt fron t a n occasional e mb~llishmc n t. J osep hus sticks fai r ly close to lhe Pc nla lc uch in his telling of I he rest o f I he Mos(_·s-story. w~ m ay suspect !h at the p rocedure of the Ch r istian evangelists was sim ilar: whe re they h ad a traditio n al accounl to hand. they follo wed it. b UI. where no t. I h ey h ad to :t con sid e r a b le extent to u se their imagin al ion. ~1 ct i ng o n what !hey thoug ht of
Androcentricity Matthc w•s accounl is. m ollly read ers will think. d omin;Hed to a distressing t~x te nl by m al~ persp~ctivcs . He begins h is b ook with a brene:dob'1' o r.Joseph. ~hry appears o nly in p a rcnth ~ses, as il were: ·J acob b egot J oseph. t he husband of Ma r y. from whom was born J e..o;u s who is called the Ch rist" ( Malt 1: 16). The p resen ce o f Tamar. Rahab. Ruth. and I he wife of Ur iah does not indicate feminist sym pouhics on the pan of the evan gelis t: t h~)' s~em to be lhe rc o n ly to supply a n approx im ate b ib lical preced e n t for tlte irregular manner o fJ esu.s' conccp l ion. 1.; l\•l au he w then anno unces (1 :18) t ha t he is abo ut to speak ofJ~su s• birth . but in fact h e d oes not narrate the acwal nat ivity, but o n ly it..-; anteced c n L..; a nd it..-; sequel. Marr is again me ntioned in a n oblique way: .. h is mothe r 1\•fary h aYing been bt-lrm hed to J ose p h .. . " ( 1:18a). In J: ISh Mary is actually a llo wed to b e I he subject of a n~rb. but s ignifk anlly I his is in th e passive voice: ~s he was fou n d to be with child. of (the] holy sp irit." (What Mauhcw m eans by t h is '"e h·ill discu ss late r.) The p •·ed icam c nl created b}' 1\hry's premalllre pregnancy is viewed solely fm m J oseph's angle. and the angelic vi.sitation t h at ensu es. wit h a \•iew w rcso h·ing the prob lem, is granted not (as in Lu ke) to Mary. bul to J osep h . In 1:25 b it is not clear gr.unmaljcally which parent names the c h ild. b ut since in 1:2 lb Joseph has been instructed 10 d o t h is."'<: c:ut presume that o nce again t he spotlight is on Joseph. It is h}' accepting the c h ild a n d naming h im thatJ oseph g ives h im legal title lo O;widic d escent. 16 In Mat.the w•ssccond chapte r. Mary is again left in the .shad o,,·s. 1n the m agi n ar r ati,·c. it is t rue th al J oseph doc:s n o t appear (..o;u r prisingly. perhaps). b ut Mary is 1ncnlion cd only incid entally: the male magi "fcn1nd tltc ch ild with Mary h is m o ther"" (2:11). In the stor}' of the flight into Egypl. an angelic m essage is I> Ibid .•73- 74. 1~ Sec, e.g.. Gundry. Mtlllhn~', 19.

116

Bt'rturrd P. Robinson

delin -:rcd again to J o.c;cph. whe reas Ma r-y's role is e nt irely p a.ssi\'c: ~ 'Ta ke 1he child and h is m o ther' . . . He took Lh e child a n d his m other" (2: 13. 14). This p:' ll· l.crn is re p eated in t he m arr.ttin: o f t he return from E~:,'")•p t (2:20. 2 1). T he story (and Matthe w's infan cy n a rr.- tin~ :\sa wh o le) e n ds o n th e patri:•rchal no te th at has prc\·ailcd throug ho u t: ~ He [not 71U)-') set! led in a town called ~aza reth .. (2:23). Mallh cw's d irect inte rest in Maq• is alm ost nonexiste nt.. How d iffen·nt fro m Luke! That Malthcw•s Gospel as a whole is more p atriarc h al in outlook than m ost o the r New Testame n t b ooks is, I thin k. doubtful. Elain e Wa inwrig h t detects with in th e Mau hean commu nities b oth a trend to ward p atr i:u c h)' and a ··strong t rad ition of ,,·ome n 's d iscip lesh ip ."n It may be that in the infa ncy n ar rati\'e a pologNic con sideratio n s h :we h ad their pan to p la y. If Matth e w. a j <"wish C h ristian. \\'a n Ls to commen d Je:<>u s 10 o the r J e ws. he 1hc rcfOre presen ts J esus :01s th e legal. th ough n o t the b iologic;ll. son of J o.o;ep h- a..-; such he can cla im dcscelll from Abraham. Being al.so o f Oav-id ic . -;to c k ( 1: 1). k ingship is h is by descent. not. as in He ro d 's case. by favor of the Ro m a n Sen:\le. S1 res.s on 1he role o f Mary '''ou ld not h ave adv...w ced Mall h ew's case. Leaving asid e th e genealogy ( I: 1- 17}_111 I proceed itmnediatdy t o Matthew's account o f t he p rdimin arit$ to J esus' birth, and iL<> ..o;equel.

Annunciation to Joseph (1:18- 25) Since t he Matthcan wording is significant fo r interpr el;tl ion o f this p ass:tge. I supply'' tra ns lation h ere. 18

Now t he birth o f J esus C h rist Look place in I his way. His moth e r Mary h :wing been betrothed to J oseph, before th ey cou ld come togeth e r she \ \"'AS fo und to be with c h ild . of [t heJ ho ly . -;pirit: l!land J oseph , h er hu sband . be ing a righLeou..o;/u p rig ht/ p ious ldiJmio)'] man a nd / b Ul (kai] n ot wish ing to expose he r to publicity, decide-d 10 d imrcc h e r pri,·atel)'. !!)But when he h ad pondered th is. to, an angel of the Lord a ppeared lo h im in a dream. saying, j oseph , son of David. d o n o! fCa r to take Mary las] your witC. fo r that which is co nce ived in her is of (Lhe) hoi)' sp ir it: ~na nd she will bear a son . a nd rou sha ll ca11 h is n ameJ esw;. fO r h e will save his people from th eir sins." :tl!AII t h is happe ned so !h at the re m ig h t be fu lfilled t ha i wh ic h had been spo ke n by the Lo r d throug h t he p rophe t. sa ying: 'l::J"'Be hold. th e v-i rgin will conceive a nd bear a son . ~\ n d t he)' '''ill call h is nam e Immanuel" (wh ic h m ean..-;. God wit h u s). 24And J oseph, h:wing woken from sleep . d id as t he a n gel o f t he Lord h ad Elaine ~ I. Wainwr ight, "/imO(ttvfs a rnm't~i.rt Critim/ Rmdi11g t![lllf• Gotpt'l :\«t~trli11g to M allfm., (BZNW 60: Berlin. New York. de: Grur ter, 1991). pa!iliim; here 34!J. I! Sec: Be nedict T. Viviano's fi1ar on the Mauhean g-enc:alogr in the: prel'iOU$ chapter. 11

117 commanded h im: he took his wife. 10'but knew her not up (Jtt'Os) .she h ad hom e a son : and he called his n ame .Jesu:o:.

1.0

the time th;u

In v. 20. we: h:wc the first of t he fin: drcam.s to be found in Matthew 1-2 (d. 2: 12; 2:13 - 15: 2:19-2 1: 2:22). The recipie nt is always .Joseph, except in the case of 1he dream of the magi at 2:12. It is tempting 10 lind in Joseph's dn:am.s some refe re n ce h e re to the d reamer J oseph of t he Book of Genesis.•'} The hutcr•s dreams. ho wever. took the form of \'isual apparitions 1h at po rtended 1he futu re (e.g.• Gen 3 7:5-1 1). OurJ o se p h's d reams. on the other hand (I he magi '.s too), ~~re auditoq• in n ature and g ive directions for action. In this lhe)' echo I h e dreams of other dreamers in Genesis: Abimdech (20: :~-8) : .Jacob (31:10-13; 4-6:2-4): and Laban (31:24). On the b asis of 1heir lite rary form. too. Matt h ew's accounts fOllow the paHern of the.o;e dreams rather than of those of the Old Testament Joscph.11l Verse 18 perhaps requires some explanation. Betrothal wa.s a legal arrangement (te rminated onlr by d i,·orce or widowhood). The cere mon)' normally occurred about a year be fore the mar r iage. a nd the girl r e mained in her parents' house. Sexual relations were not permitted (cxce p l. say the Mishnah and the Talmud. in Jud<:'a: but this exception mar po.o;tdate the betro thal in question)Y 1 The word.o; in ,-.18. "befo re I hey could com e together." mean. under the sam e roof:t!> man and wife. The phr.tse "of (the) holyspiril"' is pro b ably an authorial glos..,..;Joscph onl)' knows th at Mary is pregnant. but l hc cause is not J'C\'Caled to him unt il v. 20. Verse )9 is more d ifficult to inte rpret. Accord ing lO many texts, J ewish law (also G r<:'ek and Rom:tn) dt"tnnm/ed that a man dimrce h is witC if s he were b"'-l ilt)' of adu llery.n ()i\'OJ'<:e could be done eithe r in a court ofl;tw, o r by the husba nd a lone.;: in t.he l:tllc r c:a.se. I he husb:md would perhap.s lose lhc right to keep the dowry. Mauhew•s exact meaning i.o; in doubt. and there are at least three possibilit ies: (I) Being a righteous ( pio us) man. J o.o;eph t ho ught God m ight be a n g ry if he went a head with the marriage [bcc;mse he knew that the concepl ion was miraculous and he feared to intcrfCrc with the divine p lan]; (2) Suspecting adulter)·-Joseph as :01 r ighteous man d ecided o n d i\'orcc. bm l b eing a lso kind i)'J d etermined to d o it o ut of court: (3) J oseph. being :t righteous man, and therefore kind!}', although h e decided on divorce:', d ctcn nined to d o it privatC"ly. The problem wit h ( I) is 1h ;u the natur.t.l '''ay 1.0 take \'. 20b is Lhal J oseph only breiS 10 know the cause of the pregnancy al this point (otherwise

tt

Brown.

HMJ,,

H l-12.

s c r. Robert Gnu.se. "Dream Genre in Ihe Malthc:tn lufanC}' Narrali\'I"S," Nuvmf't '/'r.dtUTUttlwm

j 2 ( 1990) 97-120. !!

2?

Sec texts in the Mishnah (»•- )iob. 4.10; rw. K<'t. 1.5. 4.1:2) and the T:tlmud ( b,J;.'L'I. 9b. 12a). Dhurce b}' the husband w.u among the widespread a ncient puni.slune nts ror a h'ilt.'.s adultt"rr; cJ. Ocul 22:20-21: 24:1; Sir 2!>:25-26: "''· Git. 9.10; Dcmoslhenc:s. Agni~ts.t ;""""'(/ 87: l.t.\' l•tiJ'ft d<' 11dult<'riiJ rtlt'rrrodi•• ; Apuldu.s, .~ /L'I. 9.27-29:Justinian, /)igr-.•t 48.!•. I.

liS

Bt'rturrd P. Robinson

tile miraculous con ception has to ser\'e as both the cattse ofJ o se ph's problem a nd its solution). Also. if he knc:w this. would he not, as;, righteous man. h e.si· tale befOre rcsol\'ing on :'1 d ivorce lhal would lean ! his wife unprotected a nd economically vulnerable~ It is hard to choose between (2) a nd {3). In 1:21 we n :ad th :ttJ e.sus' mlc will be to san :: h is people f rom their sins. The word ~.sow i o r" belongs in the O ld T<.·stam c n t to God ( Ocut 32:15: P.ss 24:5: 25:5; lsa 12:2), and t he namt":Jcsus (in Hc bre w.Jeho;o;hua) was understood to m ean •YJ.IWH s:wcs... In p agan sources. ho we ve r. t he term ·savior "' (Grc.-ek s61ir) was used with refC:re ncc n o t only to the gods but a lso 10 Roman e mperors su c h as Aug u stus and Vc.spasi an .~~ This .shou ld warn us not to take the word ..sins" he re to refer exdu.sin': l)' lo th e m isdeed s o f indi,,iduals, especi;dtr since the text ment ions "'his peop le." As the true k ing o f lsr.t.e.l a nd the representative of God . J esus (in Mauhe w•s Yie w) will rescu e the Jc,,•ish peo p le from their collcc:tiw rejection o fYI-IW I-J's m essage a n d h is messengers a nrl will f ree t hem fro m their b ond age 10 !he Ronnms 1J1at is o n e of t h e con seque nces o f t h is rejectio n . Y.> Mauhcw•s Christian ity. as Ric h ard Ho rsley h as re m inded us.% is no t sim ply a matter o f 1h eological belief.; and spir itual e xpe r ie nce: it is about a just world order. one that is to be establish ed by God r;llhc r th a n t h ro ugh d irccl h uma n action. The kingdom will come when God's will is done on earth as i1 a lready is in he:owen (6: 10). h will belong to 1he poor in sp irit and the p e rsecuted : it will b r ing comfort to m o u rners. fo od a n d drink to lhose who h u nger and thirst for riglllcou.sness: it " 'ill bring mercr for t he m e rcifu l. the vision o f God for 1he dean o f hear t. d i\'ine paternity fo r peacemakers. and pc).o;se.o;sion of 1h e la n d lOr the humb le (:J:3-JO. the Beatiaades). ln 11:4- 6 Mallhcw'sjesus sends word to 1h e im prisoned Bapl ist (who has asked about J esus• m ission) 1h at it h as to do with sighl for the blind. m o b ility for the la m e. cleansing JOr lepers, hearing fo r the d eaf. rcvi\·al for the d ead . and good news for the poor. This is m uch as Isaiah 3!'> had envis:tgcd-whether 1he language was t here in te nded literally or m etapho r ically- fo r the ti me when the Babylonian ~x i lc: sho uld have finish ed. In 1:22-23 ("'All this h a p pened so that there m ight be fu lfi lled that whic:h h ad been spoken by thc- Lord through the prophet") we have the fi rst examp le of a common Mauhe:m d e vice th at is often p roble m :uic fO r th e modern Gund ry. Mrllfh(ll1. 2 1-22. a nd Herman Hendrick:<, Til" lnftmr.v .Vttrmlit,.·s ( London: Chapman. 1984}, j (-32 dcJend this (now minor il}') ,.k•w. b ut Urown. IJirlll. 126-27 cogcnllr ~Ul$Wers it. t ! For Augustus sec the refcre":nces to the inscriptional C'\'idcncc in 8ro\•'tt. /Urth. 4 1:. n. 2 1. For Vespa.sian sec Joscph u~.J..tniV/ \l(rr 7.71. 5 Cf. Warre n Cart<"r. Muttllro11md lilll Mmgi"·'· A S
!!.

119 reade r. the formul:t citation-a q uot:,tion of the O ld Testament introduced by l:l.SI<m dard phmse. Formula cit:uio n s a re even co mmo n er in th e infancy m<' was the ben efic iary of a m iracu lous d ivine interve ntio n . In ad dition. the b•1iah 7 te xt clear!}' d id no t in dicate in its o r igin al conte xt a ''irginal concep tion. and it is not e ntirely ob,rious tha t it needs to be ta ke n so in its Mauhcan selling. The st ress fOr Mallhew will have been less on

r. David 1-:. Garland, ftmding MtJttAn,,. .-\ J.it,.mry cmd 11ol't1/t,giml C4mm"'" '"'Y tm

m,. Fil'1t G
( Lond-on: SPCK. I99:J). 2:l. A $imilar expectation appears in the Qummn Mr.witwi.. tlJ>tNYI~l/1-~" (4Q:J2) 2.ii.6-(2). ~ jane Schaberg. 7'/JI' /1/.-:gitiJIItUJ of jr.uu·. :l F..mimd 17u•tllf1giml IJO tntnrlttlillll of Ill" b ljml<') ' :\'urmtivr.~ (c.xpandrd twentieth anniversary edition: Sheffield: Shdficld Phoenix. 2006): Robert ,1. Miller. Born Dit•in ... T/J.- BiTtJu rf ] '-nu tJIId Otll..r Smu of (~J (Santa Rosa, C A : Pokbr i
120

Bt'rturrd P. Robinson

the wo rd partheuos in the Isaiah Lc x l than on the name Immanu e l.~ Matthew m ay. indeed . haw: had in mind Dc ut 22:23-27, wh ich concerns 1hc d iscovery of Lhc seductio n o r r.tpe of a b etrot hed virgi-n (LXX partlmto.f). although the death p (.'tlalty e nvisaged by De u tero no my '''ill. Sch :ct bcrg
Could Matthcw, 1ho ugh. ha\·e considered th :'ll th e seductio n o r r a pe of Mary was "of/ f rom [the] h oly sp irit" ( 1:18)? It is o ne thing to suppose t hat he thoug ht that .such
Miller. /So i'JI Divhu·. 204-205. He argue's (J>. 202) that M:tHh ew will not necc::ssaril ~· be t ak+ ing tmrllll'tto~ in I he :SC'IU<: of virgin. ~in c<: in hi~ outy other me' oft he word (the parable of the l>ridC'smaid.s. in 25:1-13) \'irginity i:s not at iMUC'. " Schaberg. tllrgitimnrJ. 51- M . T he following quotalion is from p. 67. ~ Schaberg. ~reminist lntcrptl't:alions of thl" Infa ncy Na rrat i n~ of Matthew." j m.mml uf f·;-tNi,.ilt St1~di<'~ in JMig iott 13 (1997) 3[)- 74 [repr. in 2006 edition of Schaberg. 1114'1(itirruu.r, 2JI-57J. hr.rc 5 1. .\\ Rarmond E. Brown. 1111' w,gim•l Ccmu-ptirm nt~d !SodiZr Rr:ocmw·titm tJ/J~:.nu (:-lew Yort: 50

P:mlist. 1973). 00.

,~.~ Sch aOCrg. flkgitiNwJ. IOS- 11. "" Elisabeth Sch(l~sl er Ftorett1.a.Jr.uu: ,\firiam:\· Clli/tl, SIIJillit~'r PrtJp!trt. Criti((rl/.u ru.r iJ1

(NC'w York: Continuum. 1994), 186- S'i. cited in Rt'illr. ·Jane Schaberg." 80. Miller. Bctm Oiviou, 222. He tc ntati\·ely sugge~t.s (p. 220) Ihal perhaps Marr was raped by a :soldie-r wht.•n the Rom an~ caphtred Scpphoris in 4 BC E. C/lri.do/(lg.v

j(,

r..m;,,;Jt

121

words. ··divinely willed,") ' which is surely Yery problcm atical. 33 That Mallhcw bd ic,·c.s in a mimcu lou s virgimll con ception .sccm:ot to m e m o re likely than n o l fro m Lht• faCL•hnt he speaks o fjcsu.s b eing bcgo u c n "of" or Nf rom,. [tkl Mary ( 1:16). and ;dso "of" or ~ rrom" [f.k) (the] holy sp irit (I :18. 20): he is not bego lle n ~ b}'" (hyf)O) an}'on c. Nc\'Cr thdess. it must be ad m illed th at""· 18- 25 read r ather o ddly. This m ay well be 1he resu lt oflt;ss than wtally skillful rcsh:-1pingof a n inherited 1r.1dition. If we suppose llml Lhc story orig inal!)' h t-td Mar}' pregnant by a n other m :-tn . a nd if Mat! he w bal kcd at this and wished to present the conception as miraculous, he might have produced just such :• lc:o.::l as lies before us. As it st:m ds. th e p assage rdlecL.; badly on Mary. If she h ad kn own that she was p regn ant m iracu· lously. il would have been d iscou rteous of h e r (to sar the least) not to pul Josep h in the pi CLurc~. He r fai lu re to do so. on the o th e r hand. would h:l\'c made sense in a tradition according w which she had prev io us ly h :td a sexual rch1lionship . \'Oiuntary o r mhcrwis.c. wilh anothe r man. If he b elieved in a virg innl concep· tion. l\•l atthew mig ht h ave been belle r advised to do what Luke was to do ~1 fter h im. namclr, have the conception occur after the angclophany. \<\lhc:Lher Matthew wishe.o; to teach a virg inal conception must, in my vicw. remain less tha n certain. As I h ave indicated. I am incl ined to th ink th~H the C\...tngelist docs b u t that he- m:\y he usi ng a source that does n ol. But even if he has no su ch intention b u t takes .Jesus to b e illegit im ate (for it is dear that he docs no! bdicvc that J o seph was the b io logical fat he r), 1h;u d oes n ot mean of course that he is necc.o;saril)' r ight. Wh;u is ind isp utable is that for Mau h cw J esus• e xistence was, from h is conception onwa rd . d irected by the holy sp irit. Matt 1:25 asserts: ··He knew he r not up to the t ime th at (Judr] she had borne a son." The ' '"'.t.)' that the Greek ,,·ord be6s is u sed (un like the F.ng l ish '·unti l") d oe..; not necessaril)' implr that sexual relations occurred thc rcaftcr.311 Neverthdes...o;, if Mauhew had h ad any clear notion of Mary's perpetual v-i rgin ity. ~ he would ahno.sl C<:rt~\i nly have c h osen a less ambiguous expressio n.""" H is ig norance o f it. h owever. d o es not of course d isp rove the d o<:tr ine.

Visit of the Magi (2:1- 12) A br ief word is necessary fi rsl a bo ut histo ricit r. Som e ha,·e thought that the •star" was a com e t ( Hatley's comet appe~ucd in 12 BCE. and h ove1·cd O\'Crlhe

!;

Sch:lbcrg . /lll')Jilimtlry, 73.

David T. tandrr. Mlllegitimacr Rccomidcred." in t he 2006 edition or Schaberg. lfll'[(itimtu:r. 283- 99. orl(ors a H:ryj udicious appr:Lisal or the c,·idcncc ror and against the notion orillc· gitimacr in Matthew. ~ A similar use of /mi.• (Mup to t he time t haiMr:atltcr than Muntif') appears in Matt 10:23; j!o;

1u

Mark 9:1. Oa\'ieS and Alli!.;ou. ,t.Jtlit/Jn ••. I. 2 19.

122

Bt'rturrd P. Robinson

city of Rome. but t h;tt is too early): or a supcrno,·a: or a p lanetary coqjunctio n (as of Mars, Jupiter and S:u urn in 7-6 BCE): b ut how could a comet, or a conjunction of p lanets. be .seen LO rest O \'Cr a p a rticular ho use ( Man 2:9)? Virgil (Am . 2.693-96) speaks of a .star hovering over a ho use to show Aeneas where Rome would stand , but th is too is more credible as fi ction than as .scie ntific fact. T h e idea of a new star or a comet h e r aldin g a bir th o r a d eal h is ext rcmcly commo n in antiquity. whic h is a nother reason to quc.o;tion the h is to ricity of .Malthcw•s sto ry here." A~p i n. Mall hew's Herod d isplays extraordinary n ain !lC, in trust ing 1he mag i a n d not send ing an cscon . 1\'hmy scholars think th :u Matthew was inOuenced by a j ourney to th~ court of Nero in 66 CE by T iridates to be forma lly ill\'C"Stcd a.s king o f Armen i a.~\! According to Suetoniu.s (Nero 13.2). T iridates was made to '"'"'lk up a ramp and prostrate himself in supplicatjon befOre Nem. With h im. says Pliny (NN 30.6. 17 ) . h e h ad broug ht mag i. The party returned home b)' a d ifferent ro u te. s.ays Dio Cassius (1-fi.tl . 62.7 ). Further. the incidence of ech oes of Old Testa m e nt lexts in th e sto ry of tht~ visit by th e m agi is consid e rab lr greate r Lhan in most gosp-el n arratives, for ex ample: • In Genesis. ls:.tac b lesses J acob. foretelling th:H peoples/ n ations will serve/ bow down to him (Gen 27:40: cf. 25:23). Esau/ Ed om his b roth e r seeks to kill him (27:4 1). :u• Jacob fl ees the count r y (28: 1-9). 1\ote tJmt King Herod was a n ldumean ( i.e .. a n Edomitc). • In Gcn 37:9 Joseph (son of Jacob: cf. Matt 1:1 6) dream s of th e sun. the moon, a nd dc\·e n stars that would b ow down be fore h imself. l..ater h is bro th ers come with gifu of money a nd myrrh and nuL.; (Gen 43: 11-12) <m d bow befo re h im (43:26). • In Num 24.: 17-18 B~• l aam. a vision:ll'}' seer (a magus acco rding to Philo. Mur. 1.276) from the East (23:7) . fOresees a sta r that 'vou ld rise o ut of jacob. a scep ter ( LXX: a man] from Israel. which wo uld dispossess Edmn. This star was t:o1ken at Qumran to be the Levitical Messiah (D(Imast u.s Docrtmelll. 7:20) ..u • In I Kgs 10:1-13 the Queen of Sh e ba \'-isiu Solomon. s.on of Dm·id (cf. Mall 1:1) . and offers g ifLo; or f:,'Oid. sp ices. a n d p recious sto ne.s. Sh e a lso ask.,.; questions ( I Kgs 10:3). a..o; Herod asks Lhe J ewish lead ers. • The treasures or 1-lezckiah includ ed stores o f incense. myrJ'h. sih·cr, a nd gold ( LXX lsa 39:2). • WK:1tions sh all come to your light. a nd k i n~rs to your brig h tn ess . . . All from She ba shall come bear ing gohl andJmukitlcense.. ( h
Brown. /Jb111. 170. Horsier. Ubmllum. 56-!'>7: Bro\,·n, flirt/J. 174. 1~ j ohn J. Collins. Till' ,•;r.,.JII.:rrmd t/u .W((r: '17•.: Ma~i((/JJ tiflh.- Dmd SM Srwll.\ cmd Otltl'r ; \ 11dn1t /.U..mtmy( :-lew\Ork Doubledar. 1993). 80 -S:~: cr. Brown, lJ irlh. 195 n. 47.

II 1

~

123 • -The kings of Arabia and S:tba sh all bring g ifts. An d all k i n~"S shall bo w down to him . .. l b him shall be g ive n of th e gold o f Sheba" ( Ps 72:10. I I. 15). • The bed of Solomon. son of David. is ccnscd "rit h myn·/r tmd Jra11k;nau.u> {Cant3:6-7). There are also some awkwa.rd aspects in the const ructio n o f the marra· tiYe that tend to suggest t h at it is a t kast in part fictio nal. In 2:7 we read Ihat "Herod asccrt.ai ncd from t hem the e xact time of the appc:lrancc o f the star." Presumab ly we are to ta ke it Linn ch e star had appe~ucd (two years prc,·iously) .... simultan c::ousl}' with the n :ttiv-it}' or 1:\lc r: he nce in 2:16 th e king's decision to kill bo)'S of two years o ld and under. ··accord ing to the exact time that he h ad ascen a ined fro m the m agi." But why should He rod want lO know the Lime when t he star had risen before realizing that the mag i had decci,·ed him? l.s this simpl)' poor plot-construction on Molllhe w's p art? IL is unclear from 2:9 whe ther the star led t hem from J erusalem to Bet hle h em (rather n eedlessly. for the}' had alread y been directed to go the r e) o r o n lr in d icated the righ t ho use whe n they reached Beth le he m. A fu rther quc..o>l ion arises regarding 2 :12 : ~ Having rccei,·ed a nlcss:\gc/ respo ns.c in a d ream, th ey returned to their o wn country by a d iffere nt route." Reading this state m ent, '"'e ask oursel\'es: Ho w d ocs Matthew kno w about the d ream? He re h e aclS th e part of 1h e ~om n isc i e nt n ar ra tor." seemingly guessing or itwcnt ing when h e needs to .u \;\ 'e hanl now to the m eaning tJl:H the .stor)' will lmvC': h ad for t he e\'angeli.sl. Here the claims of He rod 1h e king (2: I. 3. 9) arc held up to ridicule. It is J esus who will be the t.ruc k ing of the .Je ws (2:2: 27:37). i\: I 1:28- 30: 21 :5). The sociopolit ical outlook of Matthew•;.; infa nC)' storr is ex p lored eJseh·h ere in this ,·olume, 1'' but d esen-cs to be alluded to. if bricO)'· here too. The inte nt ion tostres.sJ esus' Oavidic d escent in the story is quite clear: three times Matthe w e mphasi;-..cs that Be thlehem is in .Jude:'! (2:1 , 5 . 6), as if to counte r the Jewish charge th at jeslLo; was a m e re Galilean who could no t be t he Messiah. because

11

Arc we to suppose that the journcr took the magi h•'O rc:an; or that their departure was delayed? Grorge M. Soa r~ Prahhu. Tltl' Nmrullrt Q.tJI)ILttimu- •'rt t/u lujtmr.' i Nmn:~Hllt'.• t>/ ,<\ lt~tt/!nt~· ,,, Emrui•J ; ,,,, 1/!~TrrulitWII 11iltt~ry tifMI 1-2 (.i\nalecl.l Riblic.a 63; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute. 1976). 2'98. argu~ that the rl"fCrcncc: to the two years suggests "a remi· niscence of .some actual C\'Cilt {it is hard to explain it othC'rwiS<")"; cr. RichardT. Fra nce. ~H erod :tud I he Children of Bethlehem,.. Nmmm 1h lllllf,nlllm 21 (1979) 98- 120, here I JJ. •> Other cx~l mpl e-s ma}' be found in r>.lau 9:j, 36; 12:15; 13:58: 14:9. 14. JO; 21: IS. 45- 46. 1.; Sec Warren Carter's essar in the present \'Oiume.

124

Bt'rturrd P. Robinson

1he Messiah wo uld be :• descend a nt of David {cf. J ohn 7:41. •12. 52). The angel addresses J oseph as ~Jose p h . .son of Oa\'"id"' ( 1:20). Furthe r. as Robe rt. Gun dry obsc::rvt$, the seemingly unnecessar y tripling of Hc:rod'.s d esig natio n as the king (2 : I. 3. 9) ''throws into cont rasl1 he d ('sig n ation ofj csus as 'the king of 1he j <"w:>' (v. 2) and sets t he st.agc fO r a struggk o ve r ro pl po we r." 17 Horsley has \\•riue n illuminatingl)' abo ut th e political significance of th e stor}' of the visit o r the magi. ~~~ Frcqu<:nlly from the ti me of Augustin e onward, thi...; episod e has been h eld to porte nd the rcjt."Ction o f the gospel by the .Jews (supposedly rcprcsem ed by He rod the Great a nd ··a ll J erusalem") an d il.s acceptance by the Gentjlc nations in accordan ce with Ps 72:10-1 1 (<:J. Matt 28:19, "Go a nd m a ke discip les o f all Lhe nations").1'1 In th e Weste rn Church. t he coming of the m agi is co mmemorated by the sep a rate ft•ast o f the Epiphan)' t)anua ry 6). cd ebr.tting the m anifestatio n o f Lhe Lord to the Gentile world .:.o But the Gentile idem it)' of the m agi is not stressed in o u r· text and nowhere in the gospels docs the h ated ld ume;:m tyrant He rod the Great. no r "a ll Jerusale m"' ( pmbahly mean· ing the chic:f priests and their m in ions. in stalled by Hero d ). iol represent the.Je ws as a whole: "i f anything, they st:,nd 0\'cr against the people gen erally." T h e magi were. Horsley notes. o •; g inally "the highest officers and ad,·isen>'':.t of first the Media n and then the Persia n king - the k ing who required the p roJOund. sem i-divine ob eisan ce that the nmgl oftCr to the infant J c.o;us. They -guided the kin~r:s in their relations '''ith the gods» (Strabo 15.1.68). not lenst thro ug h n ecroma ncy and astro logy. Tcrtullian said tJmt "the Easl considers m agi alm ost as kings"' (Adv. M an:. 3.13.20),.so the phrase "sta r-led chicft.ain..,.. in the Epip h:my verse of the much·IO\•ed ca rol, -o come all )'C f::aithfu l... may no1 be too wide of the mark:>8 There ls .som e evid e n ce th:'lt I he magi pro tested at a nd resisted the rise of western impcriali..o;m ln the sh ape of the Hellenistic a nd Roman e m pires. After I he b irth of Alexan der th e C real. th e m agi arc said to lm,·e c ried out: "As ia•s deadly curse was bo rn last n i~;'11t" (Ciccro.lJiv. 1.23.47)."' Perhaps Matthew•s pictu re is Lh ;tt some magi. longing for the rcslor:ttion o f the power ofPen>i:-t, d irected their steps to Judea. If the narrati,·e has a h istorical basis a n d if Ihe ~star" was Lhc planetary co •"Uunclion of 7-6 BCE. the fact Gundry. Mtlltltrtu, 26. '" Hor:der. UbmJtiott. 5.$--60. Ui Brown. RMh, ]Sl-82. ;o ln the l\y:r.antine lraditiou, howc,'t.'r, January 6 (the Feasl or tJ1e Thropha ny) has mort" to do with the ba ptism of the Lord . ·whereas thl" coming or the m:•g-i is commemoratc:d as J>.'U l of the feast or December 25. :. Honlcr. Ubmttiott. 5l- !>2. The next <1uotation is from p. 39. ~ Ibid.. 55. ;..' Ibid.. .:.4. In .tpeaking or thl" magi as actually kings. the Chr istia n tradition ,,·ill hol\'e been influenced br h:-a 60:6 (gold: frankincense). Ps 72: ),:, (gold). :and Cant 3:6 (nwrrh; frank· incense). Note. ho,\·e,·er. that the Hcbre"· ,,·o rd :tihtib, usu:allr tran!lated "gold ~> in h a 60:6 and J>s 72:15. might ha,·e originally denoted gold-colored incense; cf. Brown. Ho'rth, 176. ~ William A . Falconer. Ci,...tr;: l k.•...-n«ll•t,,IJ<mm'rititr. lkdivint.tlifllu{ l.CL: New York Putnam. 1:

l~>·j ':P-..1 , ,- -11.

125 th at j upitc:"r i ~ the ro}'al planet a nd Satu rn. as th e .star of Saturday. was .someli mes regarded as the star o f t he J e ws"'.;.;; m:l}' have sent them ch e re. O r possibly they kne w th e predict ion m e ntion ed by several sou rccs- ad m illcdly in relation to a som e what later per iod. that of the f~tll o r the Jcn tsalc m tcmpk--1h at a wo rld s;wior (or saviors) would come fro m Judea."' In J erusalem. with some hdp f ro m O ld Testament prophecy. the mag i idt~ll· tified the obscure c h ild of Beth lehem as the figu re wh o. th ey hopt:d. would lead to the O\'c rlh row of weste rn impe ria lism. Sin ce )sa 4 4:24- 4S:2f"J d:uingly sp eaks o f the Persian king Cyrus as YH\,VH 's agent. indeed h is anointed one ( LXX Isa 45: I uses th e Greek tc n n
» Ulrich l.u:t. Mall/•~~~ 1- i . A Cimnun•l"r'J' trans.Janu"s E. Crouch (Hcrmtncia: Minneapoli11: Fortress, 2007). lOft, with r<-rcrenct:$.

» JO$c\>lms.J.-nrh/l Uil•· 6.310- 23 (~:tvior): Tacitus, Jlh l. 5.l:>. a nd Suetonius. l~r.•p. 4 ($~Wiors). All t u ec take the tr ue rerercnce to be to Vespa.sian (and Titus}. ;,; Admittl'dly. the asS(:mllling of chier priests and scribes to d iscuss the ~King of 1he ] ew:o~" with the Roman-;mthori:t.ed ruler (Mat12:2- 4) hasominousmt:rtones in liJ:,tht of MaHTlew's passion narrati\'e (26:j- 4: 27: 11- 12}. ~

l.uz. M((tt/lr11• 1- 7. Jl:>. Brian M. Nolan. T/1.- R.;,yul Sun Q[ God. Til.- CJJriJSoiiiJ['J of Mutthrrv 1- 2 in lltr Srttingoflllr

!.41 Sec

Gt~J.f~l (OHO 23: GOttittJ:,~n: V~l n denll oed: & Ruprecht. 1979}. 4:~-46. "' Gund.ry. MtJII!tru,. :J~. \•'il h ref~ll'l~~t\1~ ~~~.tt ~:23: 2~ ~:4: .15:~: 2.:1:1~}~: !'e~ts dcs~~~i!'P J esu.s .ts Son of God .nclude M.ttt -·b. :t l ' · 4.J. 6. 8.-9. 14.Jj. t6.16. IJ..). _6.6.1- 64. _•. ~q . '''hile texts m~ntioning obeisance to him include .Malt 4:10: 14::'13: l7:6: 28:9. 17.

126

Bt'rturrd P. Robinson

of someone born to be king o f !he J ews. the title beslowcd u pon h imsdr h)' th e Roman Scn;lte Uosephu.s. A:J. 16.10.2 #3 11). But why shou ld the whoiC": ofj udea b e a larmed? At 21:10 t)u who/~ c il )' ofJ erusalem i.s shaken (d ifTc:renL \'Crb) atjc.sus' a r rival. Pe rhaps. lh crcfor (', in 2 :3 we h :we an al1licipation of late r hostility to J esu s by t he J ews. and particularly Lhc Jc,,•ish lead ersllip. The m e n lion of chief priesL<; and scribes of Lhe people at 2 :4 a nticip ates the Lrial a nd ridic u ling or.Jc.o;us (26 :57, 27:1, 4 1). \Vhcrca.s King He ro d is ''lllocked" or ·duped" (rm!futir.hllli) h}' the tn:o1gi (2:16). king j esus will later be ··m ocked" (27:2 9. 3 1, 4 1: same verb).6 1 I conclud e th;u il is difficult to ''icw Mat! hew's magi story (as il stand s) :t..'i histo r y. b ut it ma}' ,,·ell contain a h is-torical.subsLralum. Pe rha p s a group of magi d id fi n d 1heir way to Bethlehem a nd d iscern in J esm a n o m en of the overth row of weste rn imperiLory lies in wh~ll it ..'iars a bm n jesus' k ingship a nd h is divine son.ship. Som e reference may be inten ded to I he mmif of fo reign nation s floc king to J eru..'iale tn 10 pay homage and / o r present gifts ( l.sa 2: 1- 4: i\'lic 4 :1-3 : Zcch 8 :20-2$~ I Enoch 5$: 1) , but the .slor}' has liLLie if anything d ircclly to do with the sah·ation of Gentiles. If Lhis line o f inte rpretation is correct. the western trad ition of celebt--:\ting th e coming of the m agi as I he pro mise of sah·ation fo r the Gentile world will n ot, in Ho rsley's phrase. be wdl rooled i n t he biblical tcxl.f-2

Massacre of the Innocents (2:16-!8) The story of t he mas.sacrc h :\s been veq• influential in Chri.s lia n history: the Innocents h ~we their own feast. in the \\'est o n December 28 (in the Middle Ages this '"""'-'Sa child ren's fCast. p resid ed over b}' a boy bishop dtoscn fo r the pu rpose), but in the Easl on December 29. MaLLhcw is perh aps thinking in te rms of quite a small numbe r o f martyrs-in lig ht o f calculations a bo Ul Lhc likely s-ize o f the popu lation o f Beth lc h cm at this time. Raymond Brown .suggests not many more than lwenty.ru Ho,,·c,·cr. 1r.1d ition inAatcd the number to 14.000 (Br zantine Liturgy), 64 .000 (Syrian L iturgy), or even 14 •k000 (in flu· encc ofRc\· 14:1- 5). In the Middle A~res the story probab ly fanned the lh mes of Christian hatred o fJews-note t he influence on C h aucer's Pritn'l'ss' Tltle.r. 1

A comparison ofJesus \\'ith Moses ma}' also bC' made: j mt as many i nnocl"nt babies per· i ~lu:d because or Moses' mis~i o n (the Mplaguc or lhe f1 rslborn.. ), so many guiltless people a rt" likdy to su rl(r as a rr.~uh of opposition to the Chri ~ti an c.aUS(' (as in the ~b..s.s.·un: of the lnnoceru.s). re HoNlcr, Lihautitm. 49. ~ Brown: JJbtl1. 20.!. r.. In Chaucer's text. an innocent Christian child i~ murdered hrJe\'~· \,·ho arc callt:d ·cunc:d folk of Hl"rodc-s a t n('wc., (line 122). ;,·hit(' the latr.r me-n!ion of R:u:hc:l (line 175) reca ll ~ Matt 2:18.

Iii

127 He rod was n o ted for bru~.;, l iLy: he:: ordered 1h :u o n h is death certain n o ta· hies .sho u ld be killed: HSo .shall a ll Judea and e ve ry ho usehold weep fO r me . whe ther they wis h il o r no" (Josephus ..Jnuish 11'ar 1.659- 60: d ..4 :f. 17. 174 -79). E\•en h is family m e m bers we re not exem p t from h is cruelty: h e killed h is wife. Mari:umne. his mol hc r-in -law. and th rce of h is son s. He put 10 dc::lth Pharisees who predicted that h e would lose the lh r<>nc (Josephus ..4 :f. 17.4 1- 44). The action here narrated by Matthew would no1, therefore. ha\·c been oul of c h :tr· actcr. b u l iLs h istor icity is in my \'icw doubtful on .sc\'eral ground s. Mauhc w h as .Jesus csc..apc because his family broes to Egyp t but Lu ke has th e m go to Na7..a rel h : ha\'ing Jesus und ertake a n Exodus from Egypl i.s very convenic::m for Mallhcan 1ypology.~ Purthcr,Joseph us th,•ell.s at length on Herod 's crim es, but d ocs n ot m e n lion lhis.siOr)'- though it is p ossib le 1h :tl the killing o f a score or so of c h ildre n would han! .seemed to h im rclali\·cly insig n ifica nt.,.; The telling of the stor}' dearl}' irwo h·cs authorial cre:u iv-ity. Whether Matth ew has created I he s wry (sec i\•lichad Goulder) o r o nly e m b el lish ed i1 ( Don ald 1-lagncr: Rich ard France) is disputed.'' T h e re a rc vario u s echoes in Matthc..""'s narrative o f the Mo ses t rad itions in I he Book of Exod us a n d post biblical J ewish t radition:<'. Pharao h tries lo put Mose.o; 10 d ealh, b ut Moses make..; good h is escape and st•llks in the land of Mid ia n (Exod 2 :15), wh e re Y I·IWH later tells h im, ··Go back to Egyp t. fo r a ll those who wished to k ill you a re d ead " ( Exod 4 :19): cf. Matt2:20: ·T hose (n ote the plur..J] wh o lhreate n ed the child's life ;ue d ead ." Pharaoh consult..; wise mc n/ a.strolo· gcr.s ( Exod 7:11). In th e tenth p lag ue (Exo d 12:29). inf:mLo; were slaug h tered. Apart f rom b ib lica l texis a bo ut Moses. t here arc echoes to o. throughout Lhc ?\tau hean in fancy tnatc rial, of po sl-bib lical J ewish tradit ions abm u ?\loses. .such as th e d ream of Moses' fathe r Am ram to say that th e c hild lO be born ,,·ill e.o;ca pe tho.o;c:: who watched to d estroy him a n d telling h im no l to fCa r o n account o f hi..; wifC:'.s p regmlncy (Josep hu.o;, A :f. 2 .2)f)}: o r the spirit descen d ing on Mi ri a m~ a nd of I he Pharaoh learning o f the coming savio r from sacred scribe..;.(.$ The m assacre. fOr Gundry, :un icip ales the p<:op lc's Cr)' al the e nd ofJ esu.o;' tr ial: -And answe ring . all t he p eople said, ' His b lood be upon u.s and upo n our ch ildre n '" (27:2!>).VJ I am n ot cer tain of this. but I t h ink t hat tile m assacre story 4

~

Brown, B irllt. Jl:S: l}alt' C. Allison. T/1, Ni'lt~ M QI>f'.\ : .4 M rJII)tM" 'ljptN~Jgy {Minneapoli$: Forln-:ss. 199:1), 142- 44. ~ So. t'.g.. Donald A. H~lgner. Mlllllun•. 2 m ls (WBC J:SA.B: Dallas: Word. 1993, 1995). l.:S5; Craig S. Keener. A Ct~rwm'.lltrJT.'t iJII lit<' Go1fNI rifMuuhnu (Gra nd Rapids: Eerdm:ms. H•99), 11I. '' MaHhc:an creal ion: Gonldl' r. Mi-dm.~ll, 239- 4 I. ~lallhean cmbcUishn~nt: Hagner, Matt/un•, 1.35; Franc<'. · Hcr. t ht' Vatican II documt'nl A'rld•w Jl,.,,.,,.. (~
Bt'rturrd P. Robinson

128

will at least signify for M:llthcw th:ll th e co n ~tr uction of t he king d o m will not be achie \-cd witll OUl suOCring and blood sh ed. Persecution fOrJesus' S.'lke b u lks large in this Gospel (c:f. 5:10. 12, 44~ 10:23: 23:34).

The Flight into Egypt and the Return (2:13- 15, 19- 23) Most schol:trs think the j oum cy to Egypt (a t radit ion:tl ··rc fugc for persecuted pc rsons") 11' impla usible h istorically. though LU7.. o n the strength of J e wish tr.1.dition.s a bo ut a sojourn o f J esus in Egypt. .suspects t hat i1 may cont~~in "a ke rnel o f 1.ru1h ."' 1 The Mosaic ovcnoncs are cle-a r e nough : like Moses and the He bre w people of o ld , J e.sus is delivered from Egypt. The .savage rule. however. of He rod a nd h is Roman maste rs will have c reated, as Horsley notes. m a n y r efugees-Josephus spccifi callr relates t h~ nig ht of many inhabitarus o f Emmaus in 4 1\CE b efo re it.s des I ruct ion. ;tn d the c rucifix ion of two t.ho usand who were captured.'!.' Accord ingly. a ,·eiled comment on the strlcs o f k ingship t.halJ csu..o; cam e in o rder to replace m ay h;wc been p an o f the e vangelis t's in t~ n· lions. In m1r age \\'h e re t he proble m o f refugees bulks so large. the prescnt·day read er will in th:u case find considerable r dcvom cc: h e re. Eve n if in Ma nhc w the circumstan ces of J esus· birth arc comforta b le. sin ce he is b orn at h ome in .Jo~eph 's ho use. not in a manbrer in a st ra nge to wn. a fte n"a rd he becomes uprooted and homeless.

The Old Testament Formula Citations Da n iel H a rrin g to n makes four impo rt anl o bscn•atio ns about Matlh~w·s use o f this rather o ff.pu tt.ing de\'ice: t he fo rmula quotatio ns often fo11ow the precise word ing of n eit he r the He bre w nor the Greek Bible::: Matthe w inte r p re ts an Old Testame nt tex t without much regard for its o r ig inal com~ xt: he lll il)' ha \•e d r awn on :t C hristian ant ho log)' of m cs.•>ia nic O ld Tcst.ament texts (r.u h c r like the Qumr.tn lcxl , 4Q I74. known as the FJorilegium); a nd t he impo rl.'\nce of t h~ citat ions l i~s for the reader in what t h~)' re\'eal a botll the e va ngelist's co1wictio n s a b ou t J esus.a Thus . to pick up 1he last point. Hos II: I is quo ted in Man 2:15 to sho'" that the exodus cxpe r iC":ncc issummC":d u p in .Jesus, while


+?

l.ur.. Matt/lnu J- 7. 120.

Ibid., 120 n. 21. HoNtcr, J..il.,.mlion, 72-7:t citingj osc:phus.jn'lli.
gCK'S o n lo <(UOh'-Josephus on the: refugre problems crr"aled hr ' he: Romans in the: wake of lhc: Jewish War or 66 CE. ~ OanidJ. Harringlon. TJ1r GI)J./N'I tif M~tlllm~ (Sacra ~gina 1: Colftgc:\'illc: Liturgical Pre!\i.

1991). J9.

129 Matt 2:17 citesjcr 3 1:)5 to conneclJC"sus with !he p at riarchal period. th ro ugh the m ention of Rachel. a nd wil h the cx i lc and re.o;toration. Let us Lake two example..; in more d etail. In 2:5 - 6 we read: ·They [-= ··au the chief pries1s and the- scribes o f the people"] .said . 'In Bethlehem of.Jud ah. for thus was i1 written through the prophel: And )'Ott. /Jethleltem, laud offudtlh. [art/ by JUJ me-am· Jmst amo11g th.- lribt•.f ofjudab: fm· from ym wi/J (:Omc n rult:t: lu w)u.) ;,,j/1 Jlupluml tlfJ propk. l:urrd.' .. This is rather a loose citation o f Mic 5 :2. somcwh;u d ifTcrcnl from both the He brew a n d (he Greek. Note. for example. the omission of·· Ephr.tlha h ."' the in:<>ertion of'"b}' no m eans." and the substitu· lion of ~ hc will shep herd .. for ~ he will rule."' dra,,•ing o n 2 Sam 5:2 (God says l.o OaYid. WYou shalll'httpherd ... "),which neatly fits Mauhcw's picture ofJcsus as thC! shephe rd-king (Matt 9:36: 10:6: I5:24).Jesus was appropriatdr born in Bethlehe m. 1he place where the young David shepherded t he family sheep a nd from where h e went on toshephen) lsr.tcl. Bethlehem was a lso t he place from where Micah predicted that a new Davidic k ing would emea·ge. Some of 1he dif· fercnces mar be due to textual v~1ri a nts knO\v-n to Matthew. b ut the insertion of ~ b}' no means" is likely to bC" Matthew's own doing.7·1 Micah S.'l)'S that Bethlehem is a b olCkwater. but it will produce a m essianic king. Br conu·ast. Mallhcw•s ver· sion says that Bethle he m is not a l:mckwater b ecause it will produce a messianic king . - The result is much the same,... says Noll;m d ."' True. b ut the latitude that Mallhew allows h imself d iffers stark ly from the fidelit y that we C!Xpect today with citations. In 2 :23. we have i\'latl hew's most intriguing usc of the formu l:o1 citation d ev-ice: ~Going. he lJoseph] scllled in a town called 1\:ou:areth. so th at the re mig h t be fulfilled that which had b een spoken t hro ugh the prophets to the cffecl th at h e would be called a Na~6mios." Here Mallhew does not quote a specific text but refers vagttcl)' 10 "the prophcLo;." The reader h:'ls to conjecture wh;u tex:t(s) Matthew has in mind . a.s well as what he means by Nauimios. Docs he me;,n a -nazirite"' (Hebrew: mizlr). a man d edicated to God-as in Judg 13:5. where an a ngel tells the barren wife of Manoah. ~ Beho l d . you shall h;wc a child in your womb and .shall bc.·a•· a son: he {Samsonj shall be a n azirite of God a nd shall begin w save Israel." Thal is the \·icw ofGouldcr and Browo.rr. Yet Gundry and H agner think this unlikctr: Matthew docs no1 ponr.t}'Jcsu s as an ascetic and in Lhc Septuagint the term nazirite has 1h e spe lling ,r..:'llzimios.'-; The tan· g uage is dose to Mauhcw's. however. so I thin k Gould cr a nd Brown m ay be right. Matthew could instead (or in add ilion) be thinking of the He brew word nifer ("br.-nch "), used of a m essianic OolYidic king in Isa I I: I. Docs he sup· pose thai the name of the to wn of ;-.:azareth has some connect ion \\•ith one or

~~ Brown. JJilth. )85.

Nollaud, Mllllhn~, 115. Gouldr-r. .\lidrmh. 240-41: Brown. Bhtll. 223-2:>. " Gundry. Mtlltltrrt~. 40; Hagner-. MllUitrw 1.40-<11.

1> -;r,

Bt'rturrd P. Robinson

130

oth er of these wo rdo; and think it pro vidcnl ial that j oseph s.cllled in a village \\'hose n:ltne b o re witness to J esus' being a d cdic:ucd man a n d/ o r a m essia n ic · branc h "? Since ~ i n the area o f S}•r ia. the ho m e of the Mallhcan commun ity, o n e of t he n am es fo r a Christ ian was 'Nazorcan.' .. ,il Matthe w m ay also be seein g-J esus' settling in N:t~t rclh a.s prefiguring the establishme n t of a C hristia n comnn mity in Syria. The frequ e n cy o f th e fo rmula c itations wilhin the infancy mater ial unde rlin es Mallhc w's ''ie w t hat J esus fu lfils O ld Testame nt p •·o phecy. In his infa ncy stories. Matthe w scL.; up a - tig ht" fo r his readers with his r.tpid stu:cc.o;sio n o f fu lfi lhn e nt quotatio n s. The- ful fi llme nt qu o tations scattered th ro ug h o u t th e rest of the Gospel a rc t he n n.::m in ders o f this lig hl. . .T h ey point lo basic the m es of the M:ttthcan undersl:m ding o CC hrist. . . Matthc w p rog ranumlli· cally e m p hasi;:es the fulfi llme nt of t he e ntire Bible byj esu s' story and bc h a\'· ior . . . Mallhew, the J e wish Christian. e m p hasi zes the J esu s community•s fun· d a m e ntal d otim to lsr ad's Biblc. ~0 Gi,·e n that Matthe w le nds to cho ose o r c r eate 1extual vcrstons o f Old Tcst~-l mcnl l.c xi.S th at fit h is p u rpose a n d lo p ay liltlc rega rd to the o rig inal cont.cx t o r the mate r ial. we must su r cl)' ackno'''ledgc that Matthe w•s trc;ttmcnt of t he Old Testame n t. while explicable in it.<; ancien t context. strikes t he m od· e rn reader :ts very contrived . and lo th at ex l.c rll makes it more d ifficult for us to h ear S)'ntpat hetically \\'hal h e wishes to sa y. Apart rro m Ihe ten rormu l;t citatio ns in his Go spel, Ma nhcw has m a ny othe r quotalions from and a llu· sions w the Old Te.o;tam c n l: h is "'ork - js sa luralcd wit h th e Old Te.o;tam c n l."so frequ e ntly it is d irficult lOr us to disco ve r quite what Matthc w is doing \\'it h Ihe O ld Testame n t tex t in question: for ex ample. wheth er he is claiming that it d ir ect ly predicts ih e .Jesus e ve nt o r only exe m p lifies a paHern th ai is to b e detected in t he lifC ofJ e..o;us.~1 H is usc of t he Old Testam cnl may the refore b e a s lu mbling -b lock to those mode rn rc~1d cr:s who a rc not experl in the O ld Testamcnl a n d Je wish studies.

The Anticipatory Function of the Infancy Narrative Matthc w•s in Ca ney stories e.slab lish J esus' cred e n tial.;. sho wing who a nd what he is. l-Ie i...; Son o rl);wid. Kingo Cthej c ws. Son o CGod . lmmanud . the o n e conceived


l.u1.. Mattll.-fl't 1- 7, 124.

:\) Ibid.• I~W . »• Noll:md. Mt~Uiuw.·. 2-t) . 1-3 Ibid .• 36.

I31 o f lth e] holy sp irit. a ~aza ~n e and Ga lilean. the ful fi llme nt o f the ho pe :\n d de.o;liny o f the people o f Israel. These a nd ot he r emphases po int the way to the future. since M::auhcw 1- 2 (it has bee n .suggested ) stands in muc:h the .sa me rd:t· Lio ns hip to the re.o;t of t his Gospel as Genesis 1-1 I does lo th e rema inder of that book.11! J esus' d ivine sonship will b e a the me p icked up as carlr as the baptism n arrati\'C (3: 17), wh ile h is position :ts King o f the J e ws will be confirmed b)' the title ove rt he cross (27:37) :tnd the Go d-with·t.tS motif wil l r e.tppcar at 2 8:20. The spirit that effected h i.o; co nce ption will d esce n d o n him at hi..o; b a ptism (3 :16), will lead him into the wildc m css (4:1). a nd will e nab le h im to p ractice exo r cism s. Me ntio n of Galilee will recu r at 4 :1 5, ··Ga lilee o f 1he nations." a p hraS<' lh;u p re· pares the way fo r J esus• \'aled icto r y commis...;ion 10 h is clc \'cn d isciples lo m a ke discip les o f;tll nations (28: 19).II! The opposit io n experie nced by lhc infantJ esus fo res had ows his p as...;io n and th e suffe rings o f his fOllo h·ers . Thus t he in fa n cy n a rrati\'C is indeed . in Bro wn's graphic p hrase. ~a gospd in n1ini-aiUI'C.»8I

Conclusion It can scarcdy b e den ied that Lukc•s narrati\'e , '''ith its u ni\'crsalistic ton e :ln d iu stress on J esus• 1nission t o !he- dispossessed, m a kes
K>

Benedict T. Vh·iano. ~The Genres of M:auhew 1-2: Light from I T imoth}' 1:4." X.·11u" nibliqm· 9i (1990) :H- .:>:t hen: 52. I.U7~ St11dk1 i 11 Mt~U.hl'll!1 2]- 2'1. Brown. JJbth. ]8..1. · More than 1\laO: :and Lu ke, 1\htth ew .strt.!(SJ!S theJ t•wilih o rigin ofJ nus'': so the Pontifka1 Biblical Conuninion, 11u: }~'rtJi.W Pi!O/JI" n11d tlldr &mwi Sniptw..-.• ;,. tl1" C/Jri~tim1 Jtibl" (Vatica n City: Libreri:l Editrict" Vatica na, 2002), l:i7.

Chapter 9

The Magi Story through the Eyes of Pasolini: A Bakhtinian Reading Christopher Fuller

Few figu res outside ofJ esus h:we
The Magi in the Gospel of Matthew The word ~ m ag i " is lhc p lu r al fO rm of t he Latin magu.f. der ived from the G reek term magoJ (plural magoi). l\•fagi arc n o t exclusive lo the F'irsl Gosp el, appear ing in other literature from the Old Testament ( Dan 2:1- 13) a nd the New Tcsl ament (AcL.s 13:6--12). The standard Gruk·E'IIgli.\·h Lexicon of t}u NntJ ..,,.1tament dcfin('S a magos as a .. wise man a nd priest, who W(IS e xpe rt in ~ast rol· Og')'· inlcrprelation of dreams and \'arious other o ccult arts."'l Sin ce Matt hew explains that th e m;tgi a rrived f ro m the cast, t hey have common ly been

1

t

SC'<' Richard C. Trexler. 11" Jmmuy of th<' M~gi: Mnmiug.• in fli.•"lrl l)' uf tt c;Jm'.di~,. Story

(Priuc.C'Ion. NJ: Pr inceton Un i n~rsity Press. 1997). W. Bauer, :\ Grw.Jc·t :llgli-lh l.o:ittm ufth<'l"'""' T<'slmru11t 1mtl 01/ln·t·;tniJ Cllri.rtitm f.JtNYIIIIrt'. C'd. W.F. Arndt a nd F.W. GinJ,•Tich: third edn reY. F.W. Gingrich :md F.W. D:utkcr (Chic:tJ:,~: Unin•rsi\}' or Chicago Press. 2000). 608.

Tht: Mag; SsorJ t)nvugll slur l":)v-.r (If Ptuolini

133

idetuified as Persian or Median priests or astrologers. Others han:- spccu· latcd that t h eir orig ins a rc in Ar.•b ia, l!ab ylon. the Srrian dcsen. o r Asia Mino r.' Because there is no rdCrcncc o utside of the Gospel of Matthew to these particular m agi or t heir \'isiLto jesus. SOnle qut':stion the h is toricity or the story. Raymond Brown argues that a n und erstand ing o r t he h istorica l con tex t within which Manhew wrote his Gospel provides e\'·id e n ce of verisim ilitude btu not h istory...~ This context in cludes mcs.o;i:-m ic expectation that a d escen danl or David would arise to rule lsr;td, widespread il1lerest in ast ronomy a nd the relationship between celest ial occurre n ces a nd hum:m en:nLs. d ocumented aslral e \'Cnts dur ing th e period, the repuunio n of magi in general amongJ cws a nd Gentiles as possessors of special powers. and n ews or eastern rulcrs b ear· ing g ifts as tribute fo r r u lers in Ro me and J e ruscllcm. Brown a nd o thers argue that the likely b ackground fo r Motll hew's narra· tiYe is th e story of Balaam in Nu mbers 22-24 .~ In th is ta lc th e Moabite King Bal:tk summons the d iv-i ner 1!-
~

For th e rangco of choices. sec Ben Witherington Ill. *Birth ofJ r-.sus: in /Jirt~•un.r tifj l':luJ. Grupdt. c:d. j (l('l It Green. Scot McKnight, and I. Howa rd ~ l anhall (Downen

tmd t/u

GrO\'t": l ntr-rVarsity. 992). 72: Daniel .f. Harr-ington. Tlu Gi~lp.·l !if' M attlur•• {Sacra Pagina 1; Collegr-\'ille: Liturgical Pres$, 1991). 4'2: R~lpnond E. Brown, 1 1u: B irth tif lit<' ,\ln.:ri,.f•: :\ Co•nlffmtm:r IJII ' ' "' /Jifa~try Narmthvs ;, Ill<' GtJ.•pd.\ of Malt/Jn•• cmd l. otlu·. rc\'. ~dn (New Vorl:: Doubleday. 1993). 168- 70. 1 Bro\•·n. lli•th tif th<' M<'.J.r iult. 189- 90. Sec: also Bernard Robinson's C'S.iay in the prc\·ious chapter. 1 Bro\\·n. /Jirt/1 of i/11: ;\/t'.tJialt, 19!1---96; Donald A. Hagner. Muultro' (WBC :tk Dallas: Word Hooks. )99j), 48- 49; Eduard Schwd:tc:r, .,.,,,. Com/ ;,\'1'1.1~' ac~rding tCJ Mt~llh<'tv. t ran.s.. David E. Green (Atlanla:J ohn Knox. 1975), 37: Robl'!rl H. Gundn•. l\lttUArw: 1l C,mmt:JOtar.'· rm n;, 11tmdbt~lt jM'tJ Mixt:tl Clmn·ll U11d<'r l+m(l(ti~Jtt (Grand Rapids: Eerdma ns, 1994). 27. ' The /Pu"u.;rr.•~' /JfJCIImt:JI! (CD 7:18-20) applies it to the kinglr and priestly messiah of 1he Dead Sea Scrolls communitr; soJ ohn J. Collins, ·17,, Sct'ptrr a,.d tilt: S!ar: 1 1•t: M a.•iulu ujUt<' D<'ad SIN' .'W'IYIII.r 1111d Of/In- ~lnr;_,.,, Ul<'m l•t" (New York: Douhlcdar. 199:>), 80-82.

134

returns hom e? Brown's a rgument is stre n g the n ed by Philo's descriptio n o f Balaled t h at t he non :Je wish m agi foreshad ow J e.o;us' co m· m:-m d in Mall 28 :19 to ··make d iscip les of all nations" a nd .
Neither kings nor wise men That th<": magi in Mallhcw's narrative were not. kings is ackn owledged by schol· ar ly conscnsu.s. Wh at h:•s also attained popu larity is t he translmion of 111ttgo; as ~w i.sc men" because as non:Jcws they were :1blc to recogn ize the coming of lsracr .s red eemer whe n the n::ation •s own lead cr.s could n ot d o t he s:unc.11

:; Brmo;n. Jliltll ofthr Mr.uiaA. 194- 96. F. H. Colson, !'Mill. tiOI. 6: o,. Aboullm11. 011 }M' f''· 011 Mt1.
Tht: Mag; SsorJ t)nvugll slur l":)v-.r (If Ptuolini

·~

Ho,,·e\'~r. 1hrough :l

careful narrative-critical a naly:o;is ~hrk A llan Powell c h:dlcnges Ill is a rg ume nt.12 Pow~JI < 1dd1·css.cs Ihe m agi by d iscerning what the text expects th e rcad e1· to know about them t hrough inte rtextu:\1 knowledge. This re;,dcr lo who m 1he text addresses itself is often called the implied reader. As Powel l ack nowledges. the implied reader would be cxp~cted to und ersta nd Mall h c\\'·s d irect citations of and allusions to t he Old Testament. Howe\'\"'r.jusl because a reader is able t.o r ecogn ize the a llusion s to ls:t 60:5 - 6 and Ps i2: 10 - l I a nd understand th ai the magi come to .Jesus in a mann er like kings docs not make the m literally kings. Powell a rgues that the intertcxn ml rei:Liionsh ip bclwccn th e nmgi and the Old Testament texis pro vokes a n association between m agi a nd kings, b ut n ot in the way that contc mporar yChristjans h a\'c come to understand. After re,•icwing G reco-Roman a n d J ewish mid rashic literature as \\'d l as the reference to magi in the Greek tnmslatio n o f Daniel (Dan 2:2. 10). Powell condud es that magi in the ancient world arc ponrayed as Jowl)' servanL of t he po we rful. fu rlhe rmo re. I h ey are p ortrayed as Daniel's e n emies ;md would have. therefo re. been peTceivcd in a n egative ligh t b)' the implied reader.1' Powell the n d iscems the negat ive pon1·ayal of rorahy a nd power within the Gospel of Matthew. According to Powd l. .. In Matthew•s narr:ltive. expon e nts of world ly power. be 1hey poliLical o r religious. a rc inv;uiablyaligned with Satan. '''h ilc the powerless an: presented a.s tOilowe rs '"ith whom Jesus' d iscip le...; must ide ntify." 11 PoweJI concludes that the beh avior of the magi when they m eet J esus falls within the c haracterizatio n of scrvam s in t he First Gospel rathe r than kings. The refo re, Matt hew's narr;ttor uses I he allusions to l'.s 72:10- 11 an d lsa 60:5- 6 to cn::atc a contrast between t he b c h a\'ior o f kings a n d I he beh avior o f the m:.gi. The implied reader's expectations arc o verturned by ha\·ing J esus worshipped by servants rather ihan kingsY Powell chen addresses the tnorc comtnon understand ing of t he m agi as wise persons- with similar results. He fi rst notes that wh ile jt is assum ed that the magi c m piO)'ed their spcci:\1 understanding of a.sl ro logy to find J esus. I he n<\rrativc n owhere states this. In fa ct. it has the m as k Herod whe r e the king oft he J ews was to b e born. Thus, they u sed what would have heen common knowledge at the time th:H unusual astr;tl e vent.s signaled Lhc birth of a g reat pcrson.u; Again . Powell surveys Grcco-Rom:tn and j ewish lite rature to conclude 1~

Mark Allan Powell. (:Jur.•·iug lhl' J£a!rll'n• S~t~ o·: ~lliw.1•ilfTa ;, Biblkttlftnldn~Jk•pmu.•· CritidJ"' (Louis\·ille: Wt-":S.tminsler.Johu Knox. 2001}. IJ Kee-ner. MaJII.,:u•. 99. II Po\'o'eiJ. ChtUh•g. 144. 1;. Ibid .• 146- 47. " S("C Roy A. RO$oC'nbcrg...The Star of the M"siah Reconsidered.'' Rit./irtl 53 (1972) I0:>-109.

136 1h at the implied reader would prob~-1 bl y n~gard any .special learning o r powers of 1he magi as ridic u1o us.1; Further, the magi's question to He rod convers t heir m isund erstanding ofJt•.sus si nce they attribute to h im a p o litical title ("King of the jews," Mall2:2) - a title' u.sed by o thers in the- nar r.Hive wh o do no t unde r· st~md J esus or his mission (Mall 2 7: II. 29. 37 ). Finally. Powell argues that the ro le o f the sl:\r in 1he narrative is so ovc rll)' presented that virtually anyone cou ld fo llow it. The magi d o not kno w. as does Herod. the m essian ic signifi· cancc of the star. They do not know. as do the J ewish lcader.s. that the k ing of the Jc\''S is t.o b e horn in Bethle h e m. They an~ not aware. as is the reader. of Hemd•s m alignant intentioa1s. The refOre, th e magi an: ~the most ignorant c haracte rs in the story."' 111 Inte restingly. Motll)' Python pic ks up on t h is <Jttality of the nutgi by having the m visit the wrong manger at the beginning or their 1979 fihn. lt1outy /')·1lum'.s Lift ofBrian. From the: preceding analrscs Powell concludes tha t ~·l a llh ew on: rturns t he im plied read er's e xpectat ions by p resenting the magi 1101 a.s ~re prcse nt:t tin:s of the best of p ag an lo re and relig ious perception .. w who seek Israel's Messiah based on the ir ··secret lore:."'?~> but as pagan Cools ''' ho know noth ing a n d arc ignorant be fore Israel's God. Ye t to them God reveals t he truth about J esus. This agrees with the remainder or Mauhew•s naJTdl in : th:n p roposes Galilean fi sherm en a.s judges of the twelve 1ribcs of Israel ( 19:28) <m d a kingdom that re quires it.s inhabitanls to be like c hildren ( 18:13; 19:14). The .strength of Powell's argument lies not only in his rcCercn cc to intcrtcx· tual opin ions a bo ut Magi and their pran iccs but ~-1lso in h is insightful inlr'A· tc xlu;tl analysis tha t demonstrates the m;mncr '''ith whic h Matthew•s narrator fashions a confl ict bcLween the high a n d powerfu l (who should be wi.sc) a nd the low and ignomnl (who. in fact. have access to the kingdom). This soc ial and theologic a l rcwn;al demonstra tc:s.J(_•.sus' admonition thal -th e fi n>t will b e la.sl and thC! last will be first" (19:30: 2 0:16).

II. The Magi in The GospelAcconling lo Saint Mallhew \ 'V h c n e xamin ing Pasolini's fi lm of '17u G(}spd, il is important to address the common misconce p tion 1h :lllhe movie i.s a fa ich ful visual retelling of the First Gospel. Fo r e xample, '''h e n it a warded th e fi lm its highest h o nor, the Offia Ulllwlique hlferturfitma/4' du Cinema (OCJC) declare d , ~The author-wit ho ut renouncing hil> 0 \\'11 idco!Ot,'")'- has fa ithfully tramlatcd. wil h a simplic ity a nd ;; Sec also Carter. Mfltiluu,m•d lilt' Margm.•. 74-75. ~~ It i1l

Powell. CltMi11g . 1!)5. David E. Garland. HMding /lltdt/l,.f.r. tl /.it.•nn.r tnul 11uologir'((/ CmnmmtLtry tm th, FiJYI Gru!'rl (NClvYork: Cros.sroad. 1993). 25:. W.O. 0;1\·it.s a nd Dale C. All i ~on. "riM Gi1.•p.·l Ammli11g It~ St~i/11 :\friiiMu• 1-\'/1 (ICC: Edinburgh: T&T Clark. 1988). 2:JO.

Tht: Mag; SsorJ t)nvugll slur l":)v-.r (If Ptuolini

137

a human d e n.sitr somel imes moving. 1he social message of the Gospel- in particular the love of Ihe poor and opp rcsscd- .sufficienll)' respecting the div-i ne d imension o r Chr i.s t."1 1 This perception of fidd ity was propagated by Pasolini as he worked on Ihe film. In a letter he stated that h is idea was to ~ follow the Gospel o f Matthew point by point" a nd th ;tt he would -raithrullr t ranslate it in images without an o111is..sion o r additio n to 1h <: stoq•.'~'n 1-lowe n :r. fi\'e re<~rs after 1he fllm. 1>-:tsolini suggested that his intentions "'e re 0 1h er th For more detailed n:aminatiotu of P;oolini's omissions. rC':arrangemenu. and usc of ,·isua ls and music. sec Christopher C. Fuller. " · u,Ji.Jtn/Jif j11 d<'ilo.... mtt io r/ir"' (hlf... ' l':Lsolini as l nterprC'ler of t he: Gospel of t\latthew." Ph D dissc:rt.alion (Gr:aduat<' Theological Union. Berkeley. 2002). 15-2:.: Zygmunl G. Baratlski. "T1tc 1Cxts of 111'tmgtlf1.vamdf1 Mflilt:o," in />t:r.u>lini Old~.., Nm'-.. cd. Zygmunt G. Barailski (Dublin: Four Courts Press. )999). 281- 320. !I> ~Best of the Nch' f'il ms," Cilllmlir. Film ;\t~f•'I!J/i!ll,.r. February 26. ]966, I.

!S

!t

138 Ho,,·ev~r.

one i.s not sure '''h}' su ch hcadwear is neccs..o;ary; its purpose is left unexplained. When the magi c ve ntu:'llly a ppear in the film. the spectato r thus cxp·c cls a n uncommon rend ering of their e n cm1ntcr with t he newborn k ing. The m:•gi fi rst appear with an est.ablish ing shot lh:'ll ''icws the m from behind as they cntcr.Jcrwmlcm. l'asolini retains the C hristian tradition of three magi. \<\<'ith 1he next c Ul the camera docs not fo llow the m but .surveys the husr m:lrkctplacc that they traverse on their war to visit He rod. ll C\'Cilllmlly fi nd.s them as they p ass through the city g ates. The cam cr.l Iracks the m agi from b e h ind, providing no close-ups until o\'er a minute a fte r their a rri\'a l in the fi lm. E\•c ntually the camera r e veals them '""ith extre m e dose·ups as the)' ask 1h e loc.a· Lion of the birth of the king ofj e ws. The camera the n cuL.; 10 a tight dose-up of He rod that is fO llowed by 1hrec more extre m e close-ups o f.Jewish leaders. The fin;l l close-up includes a slow pan thai reveals three more Je,,,.ish leaders in e xtre m e c.lose·up. No word s are spoken during th is seque nce. Eventually I he Jc'''ish leaders explain where the k ing of the J ews is to be born and Hcmd commissions the m agi to fi n d him. The scene then c uts 10 a h illside. The camera looks up as the magi d escend down the h illside 10 \'isit Mary. Josep h. a nd J esus. A ser ies of shot-reve rse-sh ot..; cuL.; betw(:cn the descen ding m~agi a nd Lhc holr fam ily a.s it a n ticipates its ,·isitors. Here Pas.olini fOllows the First Go..;pd and not tradit io n by ha,,.ing the fami ly at their home. not a man gea·. \\' hen the magi arc midway down the h i llsid c a song b egins. A somber \'Oicc intones. ~som etim es I feel like a moth· e rless child ... a lone . . . alone . . . alone." 27 The: song continues to play unt il the m:-tgi d epart. After 1he ,·isitors kneel in re\'eren ce b efo re .Jesus. Mar)' h a n ds 1he in fa nt to the cen t.e r magus '""ho h olds the child in dose-up. After !he magus lift..; up the c h ild in ho m age, Lhe camc:ra cut.s to a series of close-ups. fi rst-Joseph. lhcn Marr. a nd then !he c rowd that surround.; the magi. Eventuallr the magi encmmlcr the angel who leads them h om e, away from He rod's m;u:hinations. The pre.o;ence of the magi in the film spans approximately eight minutes o f screen time. There arc several slriking elements to these h\'t>Sequences. First. the)' abound in extre me close-ups most o ft e n fOcusing on smiling faces. p articularly in lhe encounter b e tween the magi a nd the holy fami ly. Second , Thr. Cu.rptl is unique a mong J esus fi l m ~ by ponraying the magi d e.o;ccnding d own a hillside to visit ~hry. Josc p h. and J esus. Finallr.Lhe song's fOcus on a *mothc r lc!ts child" who is ..a lone.. providcs a n arresting aural juxtaposition to the infamJ csus who is clearly wilh h i.s mother and not a lone. Cn like the coh esion o f visuals , sound. and narrative 1h at one finds in the HoiJp,·ood cinema. 71u- Go.\·~.·J provides n o obvious c r ile r ia by which the spect~nor can cogenl.ly assemble lhese d isp arate a udiloq•and ,,.isu;tl f ragme nLS. ~ An edition oft his m·gro spir itual song \ \.it$ publish~d by William E. Barton. Old ' ""'11((/i(lll flymmc: A CIJIIutim• tifNil/lt"rln U11pub/bluvJ ;\ldlltlit.• fljtla<' Sltnv mu/ th.-fjw.dmm,. rv illl Hi.rlo,.inll tmd /)t.•rri(l/il.,. :\'1'1/c (Boston: Lamson. Wolflt-. l899).

Tht: Mag; SsorJ t)nvugll slur l":)v-.r (If Ptuolini

139

Allusio ns to biblical paintings Pasolin i's di:<>tinca ive visual inlerpretation of Matthew's nallvaty stor y IS an e x a mple o f what h e called ~styli stic contamination ... In the screenplay to 71u G(l~fNI he stoues 1h a t it wa$ his intent 10 e \uke the ··figui
• ic in a manner thou "'as oflcn contr.t.puntal to t he ,·isu· al.s and narral ivc. ln so doing he belic\•e d I hat he -contamimlted" o n e work of a r l wilh anothe r. H is part icular focus. which first m;mifcstcd itself in his podry. was to m ix bo th h igh (painting) an d low (cinema) forms of art to p roduce a n ew type o f e xpression. He bclie\•ed that the con ta minated work alci"Led the spcctalOr to the work :\sa soci::1l construct thus requir ing h is or her p a r ticip a tion in I he m a king o f meaning. Pasolin i wrote of the n ecessity fo r an acti\'e speClalo r. not only in the act of interpretation but in the act of a uthoring itself. .. For I he a u t hor, the spt~ctator i:<> merely anol h e r author."!l!l Thus. as Mauri:r.io Viano notes. Tht! Gu.rpel inYitcs the spectator .. to judge a relationship b etween an objccLivC' realit.r (Matthew's te xt) and the su~je cti vc re ndering of it (Pasolin i's images) ."") This approach stands in contrast to the dominant Ho llywood p ara· d igm that seeks to scamlessly '''Can: n arrative, visuals. and sound into a cohe r cnt narrative that absorbs a p•1ssive sp ectator.' 1 The d escending a n -ivai of the magi is where l'asolini emplop visual con· lamination in his interpretat ion of Mauhc\ll's nat i,·ity. Thro ugh Lhe d iagonal mo,·cmC'nt of the magi P:•solini visually cite'S Bartolo d i Fredi 's Adora/;Qutif tlu M11gi ( 1380). This allo ws Pasolin i both to contaminate the seem: a nd a lso \'i$U· ally to d isplay the action of contamination as thc- movement from h igh lo low. The visual contaminat ion cont inue..; with the prostration of the 111agi be fore Mary and the bah}'J esus, ,,·hich evokes Masaccio's AdorotiMJ of tlur ,1\1agi (1426). In both instances the spectator e n coumc rs where Pasolin i te lls the SIOr)' of J esus plus two thous:Uld yean; of slory·td ling a bo ut Jesus. Visual allusions to b ib lical art are a common motif in Ho llrwood fi lms. so as 10 a ppeal to I h e piety of the audience:. For e xample. the Last Suppe r scene in The Grmlt!st StoJJ Euf'r Told ( 1965) clc;ulr alludes to D:t Vinci's l.o.Jt s,~j)/Jer ( 1498). l'asolini undc:rmincs this app-eal by overlaying this visu al conuunina· lion with h is unusual choice of music...Som e times I feel like a molh e rless 4
  
  ~solini. 1111mg,.IQ. 20. P'asolini. N m•liral Empirkm..,, 269. "'' Mauri:do Viano. ,\ c..rtlli" Nmliun: M11ki11g tifi!~JPm,oli,•iJ fl'l»• T/uor.v ~md Pmrt iu ( Bertc:lc~·: Unh>ersitvofCaliiOrnia I' res..;. 1993). 140. Y For a disc,II$Sion ofth.:classirnl Hollp,'Ood .s.t~·lc:.S<'t' David ll-ordwl"'l, Tlt~r Clru.•-kal Nolty r,vtN1ll Cilmrm: Nl"' St_vl,. &l MCHII:' rif l"wdt•d irm lt1 196fJ (XC\v York: Columbia Uni\'ersitr Pre!\i. 1985). !!-:
  
  ~
  
  140 child ." W h at f urther cont r ibutes Lo the song's mutinous dlCct is that it is an English-language recording b)' the Amcric
  
  T he significance of the body For Pasolin i. the body p lays an integr.tl par t in h uman communication. He a n i\·e.o; at this insight I h rough h is theo ry of cinema a.s Lhc writt.e n lan guage o f realit)'· He atlempL.w:t~/Jifftct!.';IG An understanding of human language is in complete without the body as 1he tablct upon "'h ich material reality is inscribed as ::1 language. Pasolin i argues th ai th is nonverba l sign ifier is nothing more than the "erb al expre.c;sio n of the rcalitr th at the cin e ma records and cxpre1tscs. lf ed it ing is the m eans th rough ,,·hich the cinema comnmnicates reality, the b ody is the principal m ate r ial ~ !<..'
  
  Viano. Jl Q
  .\.i Ibid .. 198 {with his own empha.scs). ,.; Ibid., IJ:t Y. Th is separation of the vi.sual from lhc oral (phoneme) and 'Hillen (graphcmt"') qualitie~ oflanguagc cstablishC's the cinema lie. sign :u an ··im-sign.""lt is t he im-sign t h:at c nbtrgc.s ourcoucC'pt or language b}' focusing on the bodr. ,,·hich runc:tions through phrs.iognomy, beh:wior. and action
  Tht: Mag; SsorJ t)nvugll slur l":)v-.r (If Ptuolini
  
  141
  
  t~x pres.sion
  
  o f th i.s rcalilr. l'asolin i e \'e n asscrLo; that hum a n ·action in real it)"' is t he fin/la ng uage of h u m anity ;wd that the \Hillen spo ke n lan guages "arc noth ing m o r e than a n integmtion o f t h is fl rstl<mguagc."3' l'aso lin i's theoretical cxamim1tions o r t he body as a linguistic signifie r in Lhc c in e m a lin d ample expression in h is movies. O n e o f the m ost co n sistent visu al t ropes th ro ughout h is filtns is a visual ex atnin atio n of t he body in who le and in parts. Robert Sta m n otes its ob\'iou s presence in the bodily d isc h:trgcs. tile voyeu rism. a nd the gentle visual caresses o f th e three films L h~l l co ns! iLulc the "T ri lo gy o f LifC..: TJu Dr.urmenm (19 71). Th" Cmlletbury 1ltle.r (1972). a nd Ambiau Night.r ( 19 74)." HO\\'e\'Cr. it is p resclll thro ugho ut h is cinc m:t. rro m Ih e cx lrc mc dose-ups o r AcCflll'.me (196 1) to the ca n n ibalism o f 1-/nwk s a nd SJNm·ows ( 1966) and Pigsl)' ( 1969), to the sexual d elive ra n ce of 1/:on>mll (1968), to the d is mc mbe n n cnts of Mrdea ( 1970), and Lo th e mutilatio n s o f Sai.IJ or 120 Nights l!f Sodom (19 7.5). Througho u t much o f P:-tso lini's cine m a. p a r tic u la rl}' in the "'T r ilog)' of Life ." the bodies of lower-ranking people ex h ibit ajorous d isrc~.trd fo r modern wc.o;tcm social o rder, wh ich Paso lin i believed had b een s ub su m ed by techno logy. In thi.s m a n n er. the magi e me rge in The Go.rfNJ as bo d ily signifi ers of an a lle n l:tliYe order t h at co nfro n ts 1he sp ectato r through visu al a nd aural stylistic contamination. The task is no w to tr.mslate Pasolin i's fi lm ic deme n ts into in tcr p ret i,·e escorts lhmugh lhe Le xt of Matt Z:l- 12. Mlklm il Bakh tin's th eo r y of the carnivalesquc provid es the m ost useful framework to address t h is task.l!l
  
  Bakhtin and the Carn ivalesque In h is 19 6!l b o ok. RniJt:J«ir lflld fli.s World, BakiHin ex p lores the carniva lesquc as lite rary expression.411 C arniv...tl is not associated wit h a s pecific d ale as m uc h as it r e p r esents :t sense about t he world. Accord ing to Hakh tin . it is ~a n e xt raor d in arily flexi ble fo r m o f a rtistic \'lsualizatio n . a pecu lia r so r t o f he uristic principle m a kin g p ossib le t he d isco,·e r r of ne w and as yet unseen thin gs." 11 Mo re t h a n an actual re p resen tation of a carn ival. he a rg ues t h ai the carniv:\lesquc is a lilCrary s lr.ucgy th at has been influential d u r ing all pe r io d s of literary d e\'elopm e n l. It flou rish ed d u rin g t he Re n a issance ~ls ~•
  
  P:uolini, N nYiirarallax Re-Visions of Culture and Socictr: Baltimore:J ohns Hopkins Unin~rsi ty- Press, 1989). 236. -"' On Lhe theories. of the Ru~si;m lilerarr critic Mikhail ll.a khtin {t89;,-)975) applied to the Bible.llce llarbma Green. /1/i/1./lm'/ &rlr.luin mtd Bihlfrlll MlmillN/u'p: An l ntmdrutitm (SBL Senwia Stud ic.s :IS: Atlanta: Socil"lJ of Biblical Literatu re. 2000). 111 Mikhail M. Uakhtin. Itabrim'.• and N i.v 1\Drld I 1965}. trau~ . Ht iCnc LS\\Uiskr ( l~loomington , IN: Indiana UniwrsitrPress. 1984). 11 Mikh~lil ~I. H:lkhtin, i>riJblrm.r tif 0 01/Ql'tJIAJ:d>tJrtio. cd. a nd tr.ms. Caryt 1-:merson (Theory a nd History of Utt'ralurc 8; Minn<-apolis: linin·nity of Minnesota 1•ress, 1984). 166. 31\
  
  142 a fo rce of opposi1ion aga in st Lhe stat ic unchanging worldview of medieval c u ltu re. lhkhlin argues t h a t Socra1jc expression- a n e xplorat io n of trut h th:'ll allows for mull iple distinct ,·o iccs to lmcrscct with one another {what Bakhtin calls ··dialogism")- form s the b::1sis of th e c:arniv...tlc':sque. in o pposi· Lion to a singular controlling poim of Yie w ;:md iLo; re::1dy-madc Lrut h (what Bakhtin calls ~monologism") . The carnivalcsquc has iLs origin s in the JCstjvc Corms of expression of popu· 1:\r culture. As a form of expression it gives voice to languages that arc excluded by official (and mo no logic) discourse. h celebr.ues t he ··temporary libcr.lt ion from the p re,'lliling truth and from esta blished o rd er: the marked suspension of a ll hie rarchical r;mk. privileges. norms. and proh ibi1 i ons. ~~ Emanating fro m popular expression. it com bines the .sacred with the profane. !he high with th e low. the grc;ll with the insign ificant, and the wise with the foolish. IL la kes !h e shape o r p la ys. reast.s. lile ralure. and Olhe•· p o p u lar celebrations popu lated by rogues. clowns. and ro o ts who e mbo d y otherness in n·lation to official societr. For l!akhtin. th e ,,·orks of Franc;ois Ra b clais (died 1553) represent the su1nmit o f carnivalistic lilc rature. In Rabdais' literature and l'isual works by p ainters like H ieronrmus Bosch a nd t he e lder Hrcughcl, the carniva lesquc e m erges a.s a pcnel ration of lower genres into the h igher levels of lite rature. T hrough th is m ixin g of h igh and low forms. "the exalted a nd 1h e lowly. t he sacred and t he profan e are leveled and arc a ll d rdwn into the .sam e d a n ce." 13 The resu ll is a n ew creation . "Carnival cclebr;u e.o; the d estruction of the old a nd the b ir th or th e n e w wo rld - th e new year, the new spring, th e n ew kin gd o m .'"11 Pa rodr is the rorm throug h which the carnivalc.sq u c is most o rtc n expressed . Accord ing to Caryl Emerson and G:uy Sau l Morson, parod y undermin es a uthorit)' ~wi t h prelension.s to b e Limdes..o; and absohlt e ."1 ~ Bakhtin add s that ~the proce.o;s of p arod r ing forces us to e xpe rience I I lose sidc.s o f I he o bj ect that a rc n ot o theJ·wi.sc includ ed in a given genre or .style....o This is achie ved th rough laugh te r that is as pn:valt:rll in culLUrc a.s seriousness. It does nol achieve I h is by d cnring .ser iousness. Rather, il ~1 c1.s a.s a libe rating fO rce th al purifies scri· o u.sncss of ils monologic: prclcnsion.s. More t h;m jusl a state of mind , laughter sc:n·e.o; as an active dcrensc m cclmn ism that describes th e war lhal huma n .s
  
  ~~
  
  Bakhtin. ftl.'lbdai.• tmtl JfiJ 1\0rld, 10, 121. Sec al.so Bakhlin. PrtJbl, n.•.• of/ JtJ.rttJ<Wk.r:f Po<'tit:J.,
  
  1
  
  B:tkhlin. h'ttbt!lt:ri.'f tmd f/i..r \Hn'ltl. 100.
  
  12:t ~
  
  Ibid.. 410. •> Caryl Eme-rson ~md Gary Saul Morl'On, Mikl~t~ ii!Jt~k/llm: Crmtitm tif11 p,w.. ir.r (Sian ford, CA: St~i n rord Univcuity Press. 1990). 4:S5-. 1 ' Mikhail M. Bakhtin, "From the Prehistory or Nm·dislic: Discourse.~ in hi.s essay colkclion, Tit<' J)itl/t,gintl lmtlgilwtHm. tran.s. Carr t Emerson and Michad Holquist. ed. Michael Holqui.s.l (Austin: Uniw·rsily or 1<-xas Press. 1981). 41-8.1. here 55. u
  
  Tht: Mag; SsorJ t)nvugll slur l":)v-.r (If Ptuolini
  
  143
  
  sec the": world. Em~r.son notes that laughter ~ hd ps us to accomplish that most d ifficult Lask. to see ourseh·es as ,·ery mino r players in a multitude o r o ther people's ploLo;.'' 17 T h e carniv<~lesque a lso h ;\s to d o with the p e rmeation or the bound<~ry between the sel f a nd world . This b oundar)' is g rounded in the bod y. p art i cu l <~rly its orifices or what Bakhtin calls the: ~ l ower bodily stratum.'4 8 The carni,·alcsque valor izes all o f the fun ct ions or these strata (cming. drinking. d efecat ing, a nd sexu al activit)') to degrade all that is h igh, spiritual. ideal, and abstr act and relocate the m in the material world . 1\akhtin calls this ~g ro­ tesque r <":alism."''9 He w1;tes that "all that is sacred and exa lted is rethought on the lc\'c l of Lhc mate rial bodily stratum o1· cl.se combined and mixed with iu imabres."'r.o Thus. the c:arni"alesqu c celebrates the bo d)' as a site or mult ip licity and dispersion a n d as the organic cente r of the world. T he b odil}' strata also runction as the site where the self" opens out into 1he: m::llerial world. As open perm<'!ations between th e self" and the organic. 1h er arc ahor.trs in comple te. Carnival's emphasis on t h e grotesq ue bodr ::1nd iL.o; o r ific<'!s celebrates '''hal is open and cannot be fina lizc:d. The}· Co rm the basis of what Bakhtin calls :. "laughing t ruth " Lhat mocks ser ious closed systems a nd im•c:r Lo; the ir hierarchical s tructures. The stress is on b<'!coming ra ther tha n completion. Ba k h tin writes that "the in n c r movcmem of being iLo;elf was expressed in th e p assing of one form into anothe r. in the ever com pleted character of bein g.":; 1 This stress ignores what is dosed about t he body and e mphasizes those aspc:cts that p rotrude: beyond the b odr's own boundaries. The grol<'!sque bo d)' n ot only refers to the: individual b UI alw to the hod )'aS a social collective insl illc:d with an orientation to social inversion. As a co llective it is immorta l. Accord ing to lt"lkhtin, the libc:ration :tnd openness o r the camivale.o;qu e fom1s persons at the lower le\'ds of soci<'!ty into a collective that mocks 1he higher o rder through fesLiv
  1 ;
  
  Carrt Emer!(on.
  
  T/u fiir..t flmulml
  
  Unin.•r.sitv Pre». 1997), 196. 111 Bakhl in. '&bo'/ai.f m•d /li-1 ll 'l.lrlr/. 21. 10 Ibid .. 18. :~~ Ibid .. :H0-71. ot Ibid .. ~2. ~ Ibid .. 367.
  
  t:.-arr "{ Miklmil 1tr1khtht (l'rincc:ton. ~J: Princeton
  
  144
  
  T he image of the banquet On~ m:tnner thro ug h which the carnivalcsquc cdchnllcs !he body is through the image o f the' ban quet. Eating and drinking represent a n imponant mani· fcstation of !he gmtcsque body. Bakhtin n otes. ·The e n counter of man (si<J with the wor ld which take..; p lace ins ide the o pen. biting. rending. c h ewing m outh. is one of the m ost a ncient. and im po r tan t objccLo; o f huma n thoug ht and imagery.";,, He also n otes that the popu lar-fcsti,·e b anquet th rough which this e ncounte r is expressed is not the same as images of pri,·ate eating. g llll· to n y. or drunkcnne..o;s. 1l must lake p lace within a social context for it to e xp ress Ihe carni\'alcsquc. The banquet represen ts a jorfu l trium p h O \'C r the world as persons d evour without b eing demu r~d . F'or lhkht in it is. by iu; n all.m::. a celebr.\t ion o r \'ictory o Yer h ie r a rchy a n d its social constraints. It achie\'es this by m ix ing lhe profan~ and the sacred. the lower a n d the hig he r. and the sp iritual a n d the m ate rial with a g reat deal of rrecdom. Though Bak htin r ard}' writes a bo ut the Bib le. he doe..; note that the b o d ily mlturc of th~ ban quet p ro vides the opportunity to cm brac~ a n d re n ew much of the contents or the Bible. Wh ile it is beyon d 1he scope o f this stud y. Bakhtin 's cdeb r.lt ion of t he banque t as the location o f 1he grotesque im·ersion of h icmrch }' pmvokc.s one 10 reread 1he gospel n a rra lin~..o; that d e.o;cribe J e.sus' table r~llowsh ip :t.s well as the use of fOod in the Bible as possible ~xp ressions of 1he carniYalesque. There is much in Bakhtin •s u nderstanding o f the cam i\'
  Carnivalesque Fools in Search of a King One o f Pasolin i'.s .significa nt o mission:'> in The GoJflt!l is the eschatological d iscourse of Matthew 24-25. This d iscourse begins in 24:3 . open ing a new section of Matthcw•s literary na rrat i \'C~·. ,;.1 In Lhis section .Je.sus te lls h is d i:">cip lcs or 1he • birth p a ngs" of the coming ~nd of Ih e age (24:8). Though he cannot tell Ih e d i.s cipks lhc precise tjme (24:36). he d oes lay o ut the sign s that sig n al! he end of lhe age (24:4 - 44) a n d h is return a.s the Son o f M:Ul to b ri ng fi n;tljudgmcnt.
  
  ;,.\ Ibid.. 281. !>I Fred W. Burnett. ~Prolegomenon to Reading Mauhcw•s J<:schatological Discoursc-: Redundanq and the Education oflhe Reader itt Matthew." Snruit~ j J (1985) 9 1-109. here: 98: Garland. Ttmding :\1(((1/l('flr, 2:J.II.
  
  Tht: Mag; SsorJ t)nvugll slur l":)v-.r (If Ptuolini
  
  145
  
  J esus the n fo llows th ese sL;tl.e me nls with a series of p arables t h at e mphasize 1he im p ortance or this fina ljudgme nL Ho wever. Pasolin i o nly includes 24:1-2 in 71u G(lsf~l. The resu lt is that by o m ining 2 4 : :~-51 a nd all of c h apter 25. Lite fi lm con side rably strips J esu s o f h is escha tolog ical orie nlatio n-his pro m ise o f 1he futu re-and more fi rmly g ro unds h im in the presen t. \Vith lhkhtin 's assista nce we c;u1 ,·ic w The GoJflt!J>s \\'Or ld :\s one thai :nv-:tilS the a rrival o r the ca rnivalesquc, not the e:rdwlon (or fin al m o m e nl) . as the fu lfi lhne nl o f God's p romise. Naom i Green e describes il a.s o n e pop ulated b)' t ht~ lan dscapes a n d peasant faces o f the poor in confl ic t ,,,.it h t he im po sing appea rance o ft h e j e wish leaders that ..suggests t he r ig id it)' a nd powe r thai ad he r e to any reig ning Establishmc n1."» Into I his world a rrin!s J csus who becom es the c.arni\·alcsque made flesh. The abse nce of t he csch:Ho logica l essence ofjesu.s• m in istry in TJu Go.fJH!I e m p h asizes this dimension. The film presen ts him a.s the rogu e Messiah o r the mate r ial world whose pr e..o;cnce overturns t he off1cial authorit)' of J-le ro d and th e J e wish lead ers. Ba khtin is repor ted to h a\'e declared , ~An d the Gospels a re carnival lo o!,..» He also wro lc ...The lite rature, including r h e toric, of certain e ras like Helle nis m and the Mid d le Ages is fl ooded wit h vario us reduced forms oflaug h tcr. tho ugh we han: ceased to be aware of som e or the m:·:.; Un forl una tcly. h e ne \'e r d e veloped these as.o;e rtions b eyond I he ir provoca ti\'e brc\'itr. Throug h its p resen tatio n o fJ e.o;wo a nd those who r e.spond p o sil il'el)' to him like the magi. The Gruptl agrees with lbkhtin a n d argues that the c:arn ivalcsquc is prese n t. in I he First Gospel. r.s Accord ing to J>oweU, M:Ht hc w inte nds h is readers to vie w the mag i a.s ho ly rool.s who :•re ig n onm l within the b iblical v ie w. not wi se . ~., Ho we ver. his e mphasis on t h e narra tive co n straints impo.scd u p on I h e implied reader prevents h im from apprecia ting t he carnivalesque poten tia l that resides in the m agi a.s ho ly fO o ls. In The GoJful they e m b ody strlistic contamimltio n t h a t p roYokcs the spectato r to acli,·e co n templnlio n r a1hc r I han passive reception. In p articula r. Pasolin i's prolific u.sc of d o.se-ups impa r ls h i.s a ffectio n fo r the bod y in his cine m :t a nd in so d oin g calls 10 mind Bak h tin 's e mph:o1sis o n lhe b odily nature of th e c.arniv~ll csq uc . The .surp lus of s m iling faces in th ese dose-ups a lso underscores t h e laug h ing suble xt o f ca r n ival. In this manne r Lhe spccmto r e ncounters t he carni,·•d esque qualilr of s tylistic conu1mi nat ion.
  
  » Naomi Greene, Pin PtliJIIJ Pa.,IJ!ilai: Ci11,.ma ru lfn n y (Pri nceton: Princdon Uniw:rsitr Prl"S$, 1990) . 7 6. Re ported by Vladimir N. Turi)in. a$ quoled in Enu.•r.son. Tltr r iT..t l11w drl'd t nm of .\liklmil /Juk.hti.,, 3 7. ;,; Bakhtin. Ntthfiai.r nmi f U.1 ll'l.lrlrl . 1::15. ~ \\'e may also note t he g rolc:sque humor in th<' saying a bmu t he- sp« k a nd I he log (Malt / :j - 5). ;.&~ Powell, Cluui11g 1111• t·.'ruf.n11 Slm~ )55. ;t,
  
  146
  
  Cu rious Jr. the re has been n o examinat ion of 1he profusion of sm iling facc.s througho ut Tilt! GoJfJt?l. Th~}' a rc presented to the sp eclalo r sile nt a n d without cxplamation as t he cxpr<"s.sion of the p easant people who come into contact with J esu s a n d h is ministq '. W ithin a Bakhti n ian conceptual fra nu~wo r·k . they com e into view as those points where the ~merry" time of t he carn ivalcsq uc breaks into the world. This is a time o f laughte r "which kills and gives birth. wh ich allo ws n othing o ld to be perpc tuaLt:d and nc\'cr ceases to generate the new a n d the youthfu L""00 A.s much as 1he m irade.s, pc-rh:c1p.s e ve n more so, t hc...o;c smiling faces b ear Jesus• m inistry as bodies that tnwerse the boundary o f a world ruled hr hie rarch}' w o ne that testifies to the \'ictory of the futu re o \·e r the p ast.6 1 When we evaluate PowcWs and The Gt~sJNfs insights thmugh a Bakhtinian le n s. the carniva le.o;qu c pote ntial of th e mag i in the Gospel of Matthew comes into view. They illustrate OaYid McCr.Kken's conlentio n th at the c<~rn i Yal csquc appears in the Gospels in the mann er with which t he no r mal world is turned upside down th rou gh .Jesus• m in istry.ra Matthew's text provides no physic;:ll descr ip tion o f the m;•gi. so the reader is not confronted by the body ;m d its openin gs into th e world. Therefore. the carnivale.sque d ocs not manifest itself in Matt2:1- 12 i n ~~ gmtesquc fashion but as potc lllial to b e act i,·el)' sough t by the read er in the renmindc r of the narrative. Bakhlin reminds us t lmt lhe car· n ivalesquc is ~an extraordin arily flex ib le fO rm of artistic Yisualization. a p ccu· liar sort of h e uristic p rinciple making pos..o;iblc the discove ry o f n ew a nd as yet unseen things.>l'6l Carn iv;ll is as muc h a str.ucg}' as it is a n actual rcp rest:n tation of the carnivalcsque. However, this docs n ot m ean that the bod)' is n ot e ntirely ab.st'nt fro m the Go.o;pd text. Waller Reed argues Lhatlhc carnivalesque in Matthcw•s na rr~Hive emerges when .Jesus shares l<~ b l e fC ilmvsh ip with sin ners a nd tax collectors (9:11).€> 1 Matthew I I: 19 emphasizes this feature by describing the criticism o f J esus as a g lutto n and drunka rd for his table pr;tctices. This analysis reflects Ha khtin'.s emp hasis on lhe importan ce of t.hc banquet within carni,·alcsquc literature. It i.s :t concrete m anift;st:Hion of 1h e comic. Again. th is is less a bo ut over t la ughter th:m a bo ut how one ,·ie \\'S the \\'Orld throug h the com ic activity of the ca rni· vale.o;qu e. Ba nque t scenes m ix the profa n e a nd the s:tcrcd. the lo,,·cr a nd the higher, and 1he .spiritual and the m;tt.e rial w portray victory o ve1· h ierarchy <m d a uthor-it)'·
  
  '" Bakhtin. Ntlbt!lt:ri.'f tmd flit \Hn'ltl. 21 I. r.:a
  
  Ibid .• 256.
  
  re Da,'id McCrack<'n. "Ch:traclc-r in tl1e Boundarr: Bakhl in's l ntcrdi\·id ualitr in Biblical M
  
  Narrath>c-s." s.•._.;.a 6j ( 1993) 29- 42, here :JS- 39: Bakhtin, P'mht.-."·' ·fl[ JJQ...ttff't\•*i,_ Pwtk•, 166.
  
  t>l W~dtC'r L.
  
  ·
  
  Reed. IJittlogm:l tifiJu \Hml: T/u /$iblrtu l.ilnnlmY. tlmmlilrg ifl l~tlklrlin (New York Oxrord Uniw:l'sily Press. I99:J). 82.
  
  Tht: Mag; SsorJ t)nvugll slur l":)v-.r (If Ptuolini
  
  147
  
  Reed id entiflc s a co vert ex :-tm ple o f 1he carnivale.o;qu e but d oes n o! explore its presence elsewhere in the Go..o;pds. The refore, he fa ils to u n d erstand Ih e carn i valt~squc also as pote ntial in t he narrative preceding scenes ofJ e.o;us' ta ble fel lowship . J esus• scandalous b c h a\'ior with sinners and tax collcclors c reate-s 1cnsion within the lcxuml world of the narracive . However, it also atlains its capsizing comic force within Ihe wo r ld o f the reader throug h t he carniYalcsquc potential of the magi. They nol on I}' fo resh adow the role of the Gentiles in the futu re of Ihe Ch ristian commun ity, b ut a lso adu mbrate the parodic nature of Ih is community by leading the procession of the festi\'lll o f fools who respond to J esus' m in istry.
  
  Chapter 10
  
  The Nativity in Recent British Poetry A nn Loadcs
  
  Bo th ··poetry" and ··p ro.sc.. (as forms or *poicsis") can stretch the- 1·csou rces of human language to t heir lim its whe n we try to s;•y t h inbrs of which '''e can lm rd ly .speak or write. This m ay especially be the case when some und erstand· ing of the matter in hand is or the g re:ucst impo r tance to us. In the case or the nali,·ity. we are co n cerned with one central tnath. that God's Son Ucsus of N:n:arcth) -was incarnate of the Holy Sp irit and !he Virgin M:uy." A..:. Lc.s Murrar puts it. God can be regarded as the "pocLry caugh t" (but not trapp ed) within a religious trad ition. ~and p ocl'1'· for Murray, offer s the o pportun ity of -whole thinking."l We can also atlcnd to Elizabe th J en n ings• n.::marks whe n re\'iewing a b ook by a Domin ican theologian . Thomas Gilby. The re s he affirms that he lu1d gi\'Cil poeuy wa centrul and high p lace in huma n ex perie nce:· fo r ils .. momc n i.S o r re\'dation" involve I he whole o f a person ~t ran sc ri b i ng or· responding to tl1e m osl imporl ;uu function o f litC-knowing by lo\'·ing and loving by knowin g," grasping an experie n ce ~not 10 p o ssess b ut to be possessed."'? The fact thou a pod is auendin g to and exp ressing a central Lruth o f rcli· gion . h owever. n eve r excuses anyLhing other Lha n one's best wor k. which will in clude Lcchn ica l skill and r h ythmical dcxle rily. thoug h eve n morc imporlanl a rc ser iousn ess of p urpose a nd inte n sity o f fc cling .' J enn ings goes on to asscrl that :01 spccificall)' C h ristian poet, writing o n a cent r;1l 1n 1th such a:"> t h at o f the Inca rnatio n . musl never cease w care, and be pre p :~ red to st n aggle through he r lask. :llert lo the expe rimenu and cha nges of the age in whic h sh e fin d o; h e rself. Since the seventeen th century, in p a rticular. the poel writes nol so much for the pub lic context o f worship. b ut to an iculatc personal experie n ce o f truth . Moreover, not only d oes the poem indeed spring from the whole pe rson. but a
  
  1 I~
  
  Murrar. .. l'otl ry a nd Religion." Col/ntN/ l'o.-rw (Manch...-.slcr: Carcanc-1, 1998), 26i. Elizabe-th Jr nnings. Ew-ry Chrm~iiiJ{ SJurJ~~'· ;\~y.rlirul H:>:fH'rimu ami llu: Mtllri"g of l~m~. (Mancheste-r: Carcanc:t. 1996). 2 1~~-I :J. } Eli·t.abclh Jennings. C/Jri:ll:anit.r m1d l'b<'itJ (Fact and Faith Books 122: London: Burn.s & Oate-s. 1965}, II. 9.1. O n pot-'1ic in.svirntion. src also H.D. {= Hilda Oool iulc). ~Th e- w~, ll ~ do nol Fa ll: 20.~ in H.IL Trilogy (Ma nchester: Carcanct. 1973}. 29. !
  
  149
  
  sp eciftc..·dly Christian poet read ily acknowled ges that her "making" is ··a small particip:tlio n in the d i,·inc and uncc;tsing acl of crcation"- whcthcr eve ryone recogn izes this o r n ot.• And sh e ::uo.scs....;es what is happening in the m a k ing of podry in Ihe b roadest sen se- whic h we may ta ke 10 be true of !he b iblical poets too-when sh e reflects Ihal ''Lhc fi rst v-ivid vision is bound 10 fad e a little whe n words inte r\'c nc. On the olher hand . how can :01 man o r woman know what they h a\'e e xperienced u m i I t hC}' try to speak about it? Poetry wou ld certain ly .seem to be the most su itable medium fo r such ex:plamaion.s." Despite these obscr\'alions. it does n o l fo llo w t hat pocLS \v-iii b e free from d o uhl a n d d iffi culties in regard eithe r w their work o r to t hC'ir fai lh. On 1h e contra ry. lhc more pc::n:cpt in : one is. the m ore agon ized one m ight fCcl a bo tll I he W
  Biblical Poetry \ 'V h c n we lurn to 1he b ib lical poe:: Is or the nativity. we need to reflect on more tha n the first ICw c h apters o r the Gospels or Matthew and Lu ke if we an: to begin to be a b le to g r asp their dist inctive poetry a.s they grappled with the astonishing claims m ad e by early C hristianity. As th e C hristian t radition d e,·d· oped . the Roman winte r .solstice celebrations ,,·ere d isplaced by celebrations o f J esus• birth. quite likel}' in the ro urth century o r the C h ristian erA. T he impc· rial Sun of Victor y w:o1s d ispl:olCcd by the celebration of a d i\'ine a nd hurman Son. whose victo ry was profo u n d ly d ifJ(.rcnl in wh at it offered to the hopes a nd longings of h u man beings. One mfScr ipture5 Picked up by th e write r o r t he first Gospel (Mall 1:23). the)' interp re ted the:: mean ing of Ihe m essage g iven to Joseph bran a ngel. in a d rc;tm about the sig n ifi cance o f
  
  ~ ~
  
  Jennings, Cllri..Jtiauity mull"H'I'J· 18. T he next quota lion is from p. ll l. John F.A. Sawrc:r. T/u fljth Go.•fMl: l~flitth in 1/u Ni.•tm"] rifCAri..titt11iiJ (Cambridge: Ca mbridl,~ Unh·crsit}' Press. l99t)), 6!)- 82. on M T he Cult of th<' Virgin Marr.M f> Whc-r<'
  1!'>0
  
  A11n / .ollllcs
  
  the ch ild to be bo rn to Mary. The writer wa.s simply co ntinuing \v-ha t see m s likdr to ha\'e been t he tradition of Christians .since well b efore his o wn lime . that o f find ing in the ir Scriptures. shared with J e wish frie nds a nd n eig hbo rs a nd fC ilo w-wo rshiper.s. the lang uage by wh ic h h e and Olhe r s co u ld express a nd inte rpre t wh;tt was go ing o n in the nativit}'. And ;ts e.al"lya.s t he .second ce nlllry. a repre~>entation of'Jsaiah was w he fou n d in a wall paiming n ear to an im age o fMaryw ilh h e r child o n h e r la p-Christ sprung from the ro o I o fJ esse- wit h Isaia h po inting to t hem! In 1hi.s p ;-.int ing Isa iah ;\lso poin ts to a .sta r n c-arthem, 1he ..sta r out ofJacob .. ( Num 24:17), the star o f Mauhew•s .second chap te r that g uides the m yste r ious magi o n t heir wa}' ( Mall 2:2). So Isaia h t he p ro phe t was also seen a.s Isaiah the c va ng disl, with some two hundred and fiJty quotatio ns from or allusions to the Roo k of Isaiah in Christia n Scriptures. fro m Mouthc,,· to Rc n :latio n. h late r even became a tr.J.· clitio n to write up the who le narra tive of C hrist's life ;,wd iL-: meaning. fro m Nafivity to Last Judgme nt. in t h e \'cr y language of Jsaiah.11 It was :t.s tho ugh. h ot\'·ing g rasped the significance of Christ in co nncc:tion with the p romise of sal\'a tion so characte ristic of !he Book o f Isaiah. C h r istians co uld usc poetry a l re~ldy fam ilia r in o rder to retell! he m ean ing of t he lncarn;ttion. It m ay C\'en he the case t h at Lhe poetr)' o f Isaiah formed b oth Mar y's own unde rstanding of he r role in bringing the d il'in e prese nce amo ng humanity in a n unpreceden ted way. a nd Lhc n fOrm ed J esus' own .strugg le to underst.;md his relatio n· sh ip lo God. his m issio n and d eath. and eve n perh~-1p s Go d g i\'Cn rC"surreclion (.sec lsa 25:7-S}. The Book of Isaiah co ntains the words o f a p o et of t he most p •·ofoun d insig ht a nd t he mos t extraordinary expectation s. For h e sp-oke also o f a muh itu dc o f camels coming from Midian. Ephah. and Sh eba. bearing gold and f rankince nse. proclaim,ing the praise o f the Lo rd (lsa 60:6). 1l was like t he king s spoke n o f by lhe Ps.'llmisl. with kings ofTar.sh ish. Sheba. a nd Seba rende ring trib ute ( Ps 72:10- 1I ) . In Isaia h they are. as i1 were . sile nced by wholt th e)' come to .see in C h r ist: .. Kings shall sh ut their mout hs because of h im : for thai wh ich has not been 10ld t he n\ thcy sh;tll see. ;wd lh ;H whic h the y have not heard t he)' shall understand'" (lsa 52: I5). And the re was t he e xultan t p raise of God to be foun d lalc r in lsoli:th , whe re the poe t writes of be ing clot hcd wil h ·ga nne nts o r salvation" a nd ~t he robe o f righteous ness ." like a g roo m and brid e adorned for the ir m arriage : .. For :'IS th e ea rth brings forth it.s shoots, ;tn d as ~~ garde n ca uses what is sown in it to .spring u p . .so the Lord God will cau se r ighteousn ess a nd praise 1ospring forth b efo r e all the natio ns .. ( l.sa6 1:10-J1).11 4
  
  ; This \\·:all painting. from thr Roma n c.al~lcomb in Ihe Churc h of St Priscilla. is noted hr &w rt'r. 11u: Fiji/J GoJfr'l. 65, 76 (depicted in Plate :J). 11 f or instanc~. muc h of tllc: tc-xl of Ha ndel's 1742 oratorio .u.....via!J comC"S from the Book of l.sai:ah. "' }·or the~ thtntr-.\, .set' also lsa 4!'>:8 a nd 1 Sam 2:1-8.
  
  151 Moreove r, Isaiah ackno wledged th~ c reatcd context in '"hich human beings arc set, nol o nly with h is vision o f t he hotr mountain and its resLorcd a nd paradi.sal state ( lsa I 1:6-9). but a lso remembe r ing and recalling ho w inlcrdcpcndent human beings re m:\ in with their animal compan ions a nd work-mates. naming specifica lly the o x and ::1.ss as beasts o f b u nlcn indeed. b u1 cap~l blc o f knowing their 0\"n cr a n d stable ( (sa I:3). Long after Chris I ian Scrip tures h ad bccn idcntjfied and agreed as aUihoritatin :. these a n imi\l companions turned up in p aintings. dramatic repr esentations. a n d ine,ritably. in poclr}'· In addition. bccause IAtkc 's Gospel britlgs sh e phe rds to Jesus' birthp lace. 1he re tnig ht be lamb s loo. in all 1h eir sh ivcring ntln erability, associated so dosdy with 1h e infant thai they m ays.ymbolize him. 10
  
  Mother, Father, and God Vv"c can keep o ther biblical texts in mind too befo re we turn to the poetry eonccrned with the nativity. poet ry th at is n~ry much of our own era. Of cen· tr.tl importance wa..'i som el h ing shared wit h tnost human beings abou t the s.ig· n ificance of children to fam ilies a nd their networks o f kin. Indeed , c h ild ren h ave been especially s ignificant whe n 1h e divine b le.o;sing of ferti lity wasjeopar· d ized in poor communities by inadequate fOod a nd scarcity of resources. a nd incviL:tbly untreated a nd untre::1tab le infections in those of uncertain he;tlth. If we atlend to the h igh mortalit}' rate fo r both women and n c\d>Orns in a ll but the most privileged .societies. '''e can refre..'ih ou r sensitidtr not o nly to 1he way in which d ivi ne c reativity was d eemed to be p rese n t in the "gen e.o;is" a nd growth of th e ch ild in h er or h is mother's womb (e.g., J o b 10:10: Ps 139:13- 16: Ps 22:9-JO- from the PsaJm attributed to Chris t in h is last agon )'). but also to the point 1h at a child's being brough t safi::Jy 1h mugh b irth. and being nurtured and reared. yielded insight into God's own compassion ( Isa 42:14: 46:3-4). T h e rdationship between t he nascenl ;,wd born child and mother is .surdy the p r imary model of altruism and intra-depend e n ce in h uman societies. In scr ip tural texts. it is ;\lso th e p r imary model for lhe coopcmtion of divine grace and huma n wcll·bcing as expre;o;scd in fe n ilitr. There wen~ c h ild ren born b lind. deaf. mute. or oth e r wise d isabled. b ut none of t he rl;o;ks e ilhcr to mothe r o r to child dcstrored this conviction. Re ing safely born lo t he one whose h eartbeat had been k nO\l'"ll hcforc b irlh. able to breathe and ..'ittck le. bcing g ive n lo o n e's mot h e r to feed and nurture. jus! able to fOcus eyes to eyes o n he1· toving . .sm iling. sing ing. and talking face. learning w sing·along. being
  
  tt
  
  See ··Agnu5 Dei'"
  
  in Denise Levertov. .'i.t/,ylnl p,..m.J (Neh·cas.tk upon Tyuc: Blooda>:e Books. 1994), from ~MaSi lOr the Day or StThomas Didrmus,"' 17f•- 8t, e:spedally p. 181: ~ i5 it implied that ~·v i must protect thi.\ IX:J"\'trsdy weak / animal. wh()S(' munle".\ nudg-ings / suppose there is milk to be round in us? / Must hold to our iq hearu I a :shivering God?'"
  
  1!'>2
  
  A11n / .ollllcs
  
  cleaned up. kept s.afC e noug h , seen throug h bt"ing sick. slc:t"plcs.o;, runny-nosed. d isruptive, d e manding, and im possible lo p lease (just like a n adull!). eager. c urious. c 1 ~j ori og play of a ll kinds, m a king things fo r fun . learn ing companionship and cOJwiviafily in the .slm ring of food . leam ing how lO lcL go of hurLs and h arms so t ha i life could g o on-alii h is mig ht b e invoh·cd as a ch ild grew into t he .. image of God ... as well as becoming of a n age lo learn Scripture b)' hear t a nd s ing it to othe rs. Moreovea·. it is no accid e n t that images of a b reastreeding m alernal figure a rc so ccntr;tl in human art. not least in C hristian a r l and poet ry. since if a c hild's b irth-mothe r could not feed h im or he r, o r if she d ied. the child '.s \'e r r lifC dep e nded upon another woman being a b le and willing lo d o so . He nce it remains a cen tral im age of human a n d divine charity. Impor tant to o is the father•s ro le. Being a "fatht"r" -a.s e ve n the unn;u ttc-able but a wesomely n am ed ..Ado n ai,. could somc1 im es be addre.o;scd (1sa 63:16)lmd to do \1/ith c re;Hi\'il}'· in timacy. a n d h ope. a nd above all \\'il h the und(·rstan d ing t hai Adon;~ i was self'-l"e \'Caled as me rcy (Exod 3 :14: 34:6). So we need to keep Joseph in m ind, and argu-ab1}· g ive him far more a lle ntio n than has been commonly Ihe case, d espilc the e fforts ofsom e fro m the seve nteenth century onward. WhatC\'t:'r may h ave bc:en take n fO r gr.tnlcd in biblical o r olher ti mes and places abou1 a father's p resence in his fami ly. it cannOl always be so take n fOr g ranted to d ar. And it would be easy to break a man's h ear t if he Lho ught th;tt the one to '''ho m h e was betrothed had been u n fai thful to h im . So ir J oseph is to embody in h is own dislinctiYe way t he d i" in e c.omp as.o;ion. bo th to a vu ln erable young woman a n d to the child she bears. h e n eed s Ih at promise from lsaiah.11 As is now widely a ppreciated. Mat! hew's Gospel gen ealogy :•ssocialt"S J esus with som e vulnerable, margitlal. pos.o;ibly scan dalous . a n d ind eed unc:otwentional wo m e n. b ul.Joscp h. we may suppose. h ad never thoug ht h imself likely to be invo lved with o n e such. 1? So h is consent to Mary•s well-being a n d tiHlt of he r ch ild is cruci
  It
  
  Gabrid'li dealing'$ \\·ith Joseph in W.H. Aude n'li Nn th.. Ti""" Jki11g hm~ the heading lhe Temptation of St. J()S("ph." \\·ith the result that Gabriel simply silences Jolie\)h: see W.H. Audcn. Ct>Unt<'d /_.u'IA"'' /~"'"(London: Faber and Faber. 1968). 149-f)l. Wit 1 grim rcr.li.sm, R.S. Thomas depictsJoseph t~rh i ngJc:liUS "thl• true trade: to go I with the grain. I He len me I For a n('w master / who put him to the f:uhioning I ofa cretlis for him.s.clf"; liC:C: R.S. Thomas. ~cm·enanters." in his Ctlil~tm Pb..rru 19·1J-1So'Wt ( London: Oc:nt, 1993). 404- 406. here 40?1. Sec allio Grorgc: Mad:ar 8m,\·n. ·stations oflhc CrMli," in his Ctlitm ..d Pl.•rlfU. ed. Archie 8e,·an and Hrian Murr:ay {London: Mu rra~·, 2005), 178-92; in uo. !'> (~carpenter"). the c:upenler on this occasion sends d~ewherc: the: centurion \\'ho has come to order a galloh·s: ~M:trylitood in thr- door. curling cold hands like: Jca\'Cli I Round Ihe fn. il of her womb. I 'Hurry,' lihc s.,id. ·tet the sa\\. sing. I Soon it \\·iU be time for the cradle to rod: Ill} ' boy' .. (p. 184). On the women named ~u .Mailhew's gc• ~~al ogr. sc:e. e.g.. Irene Nowdl. M Jcsu.s.' Gr~ I ­ Grandmothc·rs: MaHhew li F.our a nd More, Cath.,1i.. .fiib/iml Q •rm1t
  153 of refl ~c tio n h<"n~ . not lca.sl for p oets o f our own li me. a n d fOr societies where a ''p a rc:"nt" m:ty not be gen e I icatlr relalcd to a child b ut a b"Ood p a rent nonetheless. a n d wh e re all adults care fO r and respect one another's child ren. So f-ar as J oseph h imself is concerned, and wh at J esus mar h a ve learned from him a bout th e d i\·ine ··fat h crhood," one o f th<" m osl illu m in atin g comm ents comes n o t f rom a pocl b ut f rom someone concer ned p r ecisely wit h the fate of c h ildre n in our o wn societies. As Alice i\•l illcr s.ay.s. c,·en som eon e wh o assu mes that Jesus owed h is ca pacity to love. his a uthenticity, a n d his good ness lo th e grace o f h is d ivin<" fa ther may well won der wh y God entrusted Jesus to these particu la1· p arents.'!'! It makes more .sense. howc\'c r. gene rously to lh in k ofjoscph•s also be ing graced by God , and so to d eepen o m· apprcci:tlion of the role o f joseph in J esus ' li Cc . never calling attenl io n to h imself. protectin g and lo \'ing Ma r r a n d the child. e n couragin g h im, assig n in g h im centra l im por tance. and serv ing h im . d oing his sh are o f m aking it possible for the c h ild 10 d istin g u ish wh at wa.s true a n d 1.0 exp erience the m eaning o f love . • ~
  
  T h e con sequences o f.J oseph 's actions were to be of the grc;ttest significance. as indicaled in the conclusion 10 Pamela Vermes' poem, ''Thin k"': Think thai u n iquely, in a ll th e h isto ry of h o lin ess. a m;ln li\'cd in Lhc Presence. as a son with h is fathe r. walk ing h a n d in h ;m d . sp eak ing mouth 10 mout h . Think that uniquely, in a ll 1he histo ry of h o lin ess. a man said. with h is life and d c;:ath. Be a c h ild as I am th e child of our fathe r in hca\'c n . That the prophecy of Ho.o;ca m ight b e Cutfillcd. That whereas it had been said of the m , Yo u arc not Ill}' people, il m ight be s;tid o f the m. C H I L ORE:-< OF TH E LIVI NG GOD." 11
  
  Alict" ~ I ii ier,
  
  II
  
  Ibid .• 96.
  
  1~
  
  P'amela Venues. Til ~ IUdlil,
  
  Th•ur Shalt NrJt l$r Auwno: Sorirl.r:• Jl.rlmJill rif t/1, Child (l.ondon:
  
  ll{lhr SpmAt
  
  Pluto, 1991), 98.
  
  (Oxford: Foxcombe, 1993}. 5!J; cr. Hos I:10 (2:)).
  
  1!'>4
  
  A11n /.ollllcs
  
  AI the ve ry lea.s1 we mar say that il is not unfitting to attrib ute J esus' extraord inary confide nce in addres..o;ing God a nd li.slcning fO r Go d, responding to God. lo his cxpt'ric n cc of h uman fath e r ing b )' Joseph. The c h ild a n d other childrc.•n valued by J oseph wou ld b e c h erish ed by the community to whic h t hC)' belonged . wilh its care fo r one a nother through the gencr.Ltions. So his .su p port (for as lon g ;ts it was pre.senl) was cenlr:ll w Jesus' carlhly life. However. J o se p h 's .support docs noLseem 10 h ave laslt:d until J c.o;us re.tch ed ;~du ll standing. fo r Joseph- ! h rough death. p r csulll:tbly-disappears from the n arrative of his son•s liiC (see ~
  Poetry, Nativity, and Context As a re.su ll o f e mjretr new studie.o;. we m ay wd l h ave a much bctle r comprehension of t he wo rld into wh ich J esus was b orn. a n d the p lace of his mother within h e r ,·illage .societ)'·'.; Sh e would need to be to ugh e n ough t.o survive pregnancy and :• .safe birth. health}' e n ough to feed a nd nurture he r c h ild. \\'h ik liv-i ng ~~s one of a group o f aduHs o f different genenltion s. with :l swarm of children. all :L"> soon as thq were a b le likd)' to be involved in securing food a nd clot h ing and shelle r as gJ ~.tf.\ fary itt tM ComJiflllli<m of &rb,t.r ( London: Continuum. 2003).
  
  155
  
  paintings o f Lhe past: sh e is also completely n aked . ;md Lhc child-cq\mlly naked . as had become famil ial· in art from the p:.st.l ho u gh here n o ad vertisemc lll for infant beautr- is perched ve ry unea.sil}' on h is moth er's knee." So fa r as I am a\l".tre. this i.s Lhc first represen tatio n of a fully naked Mary ever p roduced bra British ::1rtist. an d i1 p romp ted o utrage in some quarters -in a society in which fCmale nudity or ncar-nud it}' is hardly u n fam iliar in -anyt h ing f ro m · ta p-dancing" to advertising an d fas hion-wear {all of which may be p art of the prob lem). The o ulragc n e\'erthclcss tells u s .something aboul o ur disq uiet at th e rea1is-m we need if we a rc to b tigin to gr.-.sp t he enormity o f the C h ristian claim abo ut Incarnation. From this pe rspcct in::. the poem by All:\ Re nee Bm..arth has a powerful message: BefOre h is cry, her cry. BefOre h is sweat o f b loo d. her b leeding and tear.s. BefOre h is offering . h en;. And by he r b o d y and b lood alo ne. h is bo d y and b lood and who le human bei ng. 1 ~ IL seems 1h oll ,,·estill ha\'C n ot reached the p o int where we can lake such realism fo r granted . and in any event. it is lilL ie to the fo re in t.he poetry d iscussed he re. Wit h or wilho ut su ch realism. the Christian claim about the t rul h of t he ln cam alion remains asto nishing. as Den ise Lcn :rto v points up in he r poem ~on the Myste ry oft he lnca rn:nion ..: It's when we face fo r a moment the worst o u1· k ind ca n do. and shud d er to know the tainl in our own sch'es. lhatawc cracks t he: m ind's shell and ente rs the heart: no l to a flowe r, n ot to a dolphin, 1; A small pholog raph of the sculpiure. completed in 2000, appean on Gur Reid '$ web$ile (www.gurrd dsculpture .com). h'hich includes an excellt'nl re\'i<"v of the ••tnk hr Mark Vernon. nl)cfrocking: Contested Images of Nudil}' in the Church." Nr.w S!ttlnrw11 n. Februarr :>. 2001. In a dd ition. ~e "The Virgin Punis hing the I nfa nt,~ a rtc_•r the 1926 pa int· ing hr Ma x Ernst. in Carol A1tn l)uiTy. Srl ('('/t'd Ptw»'-' (l.o1ulon: Penguin, 1994) 5t. Ernst'$ (>-"tinting initi~t ll}' had to be: remo,·ed from the gallery i n •··hirh it h'as first v:hibited. IS P::trt of I he poem MMaria Sacerdota ... by Alia Renee Bozarth, from Lifr Prttym, ed. Elizabct h Rolxrts an d Elias Amidon (San Fr:mci$CO: Harycr, 1996). 169. brought to myaucmion hr the Re,·d Canon Dr r\'l:trtin W~trn e r. ofSt. P:ml s Cathedral. l.ondon.
  
  A11n /.ollllcs
  
  1!'>6
  
  to no innocent form b ut w this c realure \·ainly sure it and no o the r i.s go d-like. God (out of comp assion fo r our ugly fai lu re to e \~ lve) e ntrusts . as g uest as brothe r. the Word.' 0 The \'\>'ord, ho,,·e \'e r. is notscp a r.tted from the no n·hutnan creatures whose p r es· c nc.c in the n;tti" ity .scen e (as it we re) d e rives orig ina lly fro m Isaia h 's visionsnot fOrge tt ing the Greek n •r.sio n of the p ro phel Haba kkuk. find ing God '.s work b e tween two anima ls:l" The c reatures o n who m huma n being s .so d e p e nd a r e r e prese n ted (in Le \'e ruw's wo rds) h)' *th e wo ndering animals . . . unused to htun ~m compa ny after dark" who \\•itnes.s the b irth. hear the fi rsl c ry - of earthly bre<~th dr.twn throug h the n c\\'l:)orn lun gs of Go d I and th e cord is c ul. . ."Befo re any oth e r arrivals th e ox a n d t he ass arc already kneeling, -t he Fa mily's old est fr ie n d.s." 11 Gin::n our muc.h g reate r .sen se of relation ship to tJlc no n·lmman c reature..; with whom we share .so much, it is unsu rpris ing that poets of ou r Lime e xte nd the fri e nds of th e fa mily t.o include othe r c r eatures. Thus l..cs Murray•s -An imal Nativity" is integral to his co tlection ..Translatio ns fro m the N;ttural World." a nd h e writes t h ou the g reat talc of peace s ta rted with the agreeme nt of Mar)' (*th is g irl"). He t he n descr ibe...; t he n iu ing of swallows within I he s table, ;\.s if a n oth e r swa llo w is hatc h ing and turning human. In Lhc poet's visio n. cattle a rc cont.e nt th at -this c:tlf.. must come in hutmm fo rm. and spiders recognize someone dse a b le to walk on wate r. Finall)'· Murra}' sp eaks of dogs witnessing the n ativit)· .scene - not the wdl-fC d pe ts of o ur 111odern wes te rn c ulture. b ut -sta rving" dogs ...ag og "' at th e p r esence of t he n cwb o m chiJd :n U. A . Fa nthorpc indeed writes as it we re fro m a sh eepdo g's pc n>pcctivc, the dog recalling t he ve ry b r ight light . .. the talking b ird." the singing . ..And lhc sky fill ed up wi ' wings I And lhe n the silence." The sh e phe rd s, - our lads,"
  
  tt
  
  Denise U\-crtov. A
  
  / Xwr i11
  
  a,
  
  Nil'l'f'., u•ilh ~;·,,..,.irtg Tmh a (:-icwcastk upon Tptc: Bloodaxe
  
  Books. J99:l). !'>6. ~ 11te Greek ofHah 3:2 adds the phr.uc: (not round in t he: Hebrew text). · You will be known !!
  
  ~
  
  in t he midst oftwo Ji\·ing c-re atu re$ ... Denise U\·e rtov. Ml'hc Nativity: an Ah~upkcc:."' A TJom· in tit~ f/hN!, ~••it/1 E'1Nmi11g Tmila. 92. For other poems in r<".s.p onse to paint ings. ~ R.S. Thomas. *T'he An nunciation b~ Ve ne ziano." CtJ/('(fnl Pt~~:lll.f, 288. a nd t he section ~Mar( from his poem MCo\-cnantcrs." Odl rdn/ f·~rt.f, 4-04- 40:>; David Scott. ~A Bottk dli Nativit( (with a peacock getting itself settled on a stow:- wall bdore the kings arri\'t'). in his Srlrnrd l'b<'lfU (Nt•wc;lstle upon Tr ne: Blooda.xe Root s. 1998). 1:17; Willia m Cad os Willi :nn~. the fourth section. 'The Adomtion of lhe Ki n~ ."' of .. l'ictu r<"S from Brucghel," i n his Coil« lrd !>orm~ \'QI. 2. <:d. Chri.s.t.opher MacGowan (l ondon: PaJadin. 1991). 367-68. l.cs Murray. ·AnimaJ Nativitr," (.AII,.tffl Tlot-wtt• .189.
  
  157
  
  use local d ialect to !ell the d og tosta)' wiLh the: sh eep . They rcLurn and re p o rt back: wh:n they had seen includ ed camels a n d kings. wilh p resenls - -No1t h e kind ,,..ou cat"- as well as a babv. HPrescnls wes fO r h im. / O u r lad s wok h im a lam b ."
  
  .
  
  .
  
  J had to star beh ind wi't• sh eep . l'ity thcydid n\ tc k m e along too. I'm good wi' lambs. And the b:.br m ight han: liked a dog After all that m yrrh a nd su ch.2 ~
  
  It d oes not seem 1h at poems have ret been \H illen from 1he pc rsp cctin: of the camels a nd d r omedar ies, h owe\'er. p erh aps because su ch a n imals a re fore ig n to British a n d Am erican circum stances, I h ough ''ital in their r elationsh ip with the h u m an beings to wh ose .survival they contribute! T h e cosmic contex l is tm aint.. ined in two ways, we may thin k. One is by rer. c re n ce to t he mystery o r a ngelic presence: the st rang<:. ambiva lent creatures who ser,·e as messengers on occasion. as wd I as O\'ersh :\dowing the throne of God , pro\'ide thc: d ivine being \v-ith a d'ariol of per p lex ing b eauly a nd become wa.r r ior:s for j ust ice. T ltey arc perh a ps best a p pr eciated, n ot in words. but rathe r via Oli" ier Messi;aen's g reat mu.sic:d m editation o n the Nati,·ity ( h is 1935 organ su ite Ltt Nativ;lt! du Se;gll,..ur), '"hose .sixth section d eals with the angels. In d eed he fi n ds the n'l as we do in b ib lical poet ry. The)' matler n ot least because tht;y rem ind us of the worship a n d celebr ation of God in which we m ay p a rticip ate. Perhaps more inldligihlc for us than a ng els is lhe sign ifica n ce attributed to the star. which as il were is in e vita bly associ;ued with singing the 111agi thro u gh the ir tr:wails of "salt . .snow. sku lls. "2~ Most movinglr. George Mac kay Brown m editates o n the "Dcser l Ro se .. of )sa 3:J: I (not the "crocus"' of m odern I r.msl
  ~
  
  U. A. F:mlhorpe. nl'he Sh<"t'"1xlog." S<'i.vt<'
  poems in George Mackay Brown, 'f'ltr U'n
  1!'>8
  
  A11n /.ollllcs What wand ered a bo ut the star s t reels Last n ighl. late? It knocked for shelter at d o o rs of gold . like a lost bo y. My h eart was bru ised with the image. I a m w·.titing now at sunset. again. with my ch ~~rts. I h ad pc rh
  He sits at the window, a nd the stars identi fy thcmsciYes. I greel those faith fu l W ho troop to my d a rk window. What sho uld I say To this o n e. in truder and stranger? He has stood I he re lwo n ights And is sile nt sl ill. I imagine a title, ~ Ket•per o f the Door o f Corn." And a word. ~comc." 'lG
  
  Da\'id Gascoyn c h;ts reflected on the gen esis of stars d iscerned by mo d ern astronomy. a n d finds the st;u seem ing ly b o rn of two others: unseen But sh in ing e Ycrywhcre The third st:\r balatlc<:"d shall h encefOrward burn Through all d a rk still to come, sere n e, Ub iquitous. immac u lately clear: A m olgnet in the middle of the maze. to d r aw us on To \\'a rds that lk thl<:'hcm bqond despair Whe re f rom the womb o f Nothing shall be born A Son.:t> The star becomes not just th e star o f t he m agi. but a star fOr us. however myste rious t he ··:-.fothing" of d i,·in e be ing. Like the write rs of the Gospels. t.he poet enables us to make something of t he:" C\'e n t for oursci\'CS.
  
  George Mackay Urown. "The Golden Ooor: The T hree Kings," Cnllnt.-d J»c>,.HU, 149- !'>0, here 150. S(_-c a·l$0 ~Yule'" (pp. )50- !'> I): ~A PMm ror ShelterH(p. 1!'>2): "Stan: A Christmali P:.nc:hwork" (pp. 209 -12). r. Oa\'id Gascor ne. HThe Thre-e Star11: A Prophecy." s•.·/ulnii~Mu (London: Enitharmon. 1994). 102-103. here 103.
  
  !l'i
  
  159
  
  Mary the Mother ofJ esus The Gospel writers. ho we\'Cr, have a bm·e a ll to make som ething of t he kind of p erson ~hry, the m o the r of J csus, must ha\'e been by the timc o f J esus• con ceptio n , as '''ell as wh at sh e ' """'-'S 10 beco m e. Ye t we know liltlc o f her as h er own p erson. so 1.0 speak, from the g limpses we h ave o f her in the Gospe ls. leading to her presence in the midst of.Jcsus' d iscip les in AcLs 1:14 a fte r h is rcsurrcction· recrcation by God. It is im portant to keep in mind lhe tr~ec tory of Sp irit·p rcscn cc L<> h e r :ll !he beginning of Luke's Gospel lhrough to the Sp iril·presencc t.o he r a n d J esu s• disciples in the new community be ing fo rmed in Acts. Grace and Sp irit do not leave her. whate\'er he r o wn struggles. as she too becomes a d isc:ipk o f h e r son. The grccl ing o f G:,brid to he r acknowled ge..; he r as graced indeed. e ve n before the concep tion of her son . Yet we n eed a nmc of caut io n he re. fOr som e theologians h:wc treated her as so cntircJr d ependent on d iYine grace. d islod g ing a ny hint of h um:m self· assertion from her r esponse to Gabriel. that hcr pe rs~:mal huma n d ignity is elim inated. Rather. we ma)' regard he r as indeed a p ro fo undly g raced person. so she can be thought of as b ringing e\'er)'lhing th:tt she was as a life· g i,·e r to her response to Gabriel's c:Jmllcngc. Sh e cannot be d escr ibed as so subse rvient as to make unintelligible either her response to that or J esus• own response to God . It is as lhough she l'eCO\'Crs herself in l.he presence of the a ngeL n o lo nger somewh:H int imidoucd as she m::1y ,,·eJI ha\'<: been at lirsl. for sh e ta kes lhc anbrcl on in cotwe r.sation . Sh e may h ave consid ered the risks of being a b a ndoned by Joseph. socialt}' ostracized . d ying in c hild bir1J1. o r surviv-ing b ut bcingntlne rab lc to threats both to he rself :l11d to he r ch ild. :ts indeed proved to be the case. Thu.s. writing on Bo uicclli's p ainting · The Cc.stcllo Annunciation ," Andrew Hudgins h as the a ngel fi rst crowding her :Uld then respond ing to hcr backing aw::1y.
  
  He kneels. He 's come in a ll unearlhly innocence to tcll he1· of g lory- nol knowing. not re m e m ber ing ho w terrible it is. And Botticelli gi"cs her ctc rnit}' to wrn ... . .. . But h e r whole b ody p u lls awa)'. Onl)' her head . <~I read y ha loed, bows. Acquiescin g. And 1ho ugh sh e ,,,.ill, sh e's not ret said : Behold. I am tb~ handmaid of the LtmJ, As Bo uicclli. in his g t·cat pity. Lets h e r refuse. accept. re fu se. and thin k again.'11>
  
  ~ A ndrew Hudgin$, "The Cestdlo Annunciation," in Uj,hfJirlmg My.trry. . ;h, A11thol og:r ~Jj Omumpownr Clt~i.Yiitm !'o.·bJ. ed. D<wid Impastato (New York: O :dOrd Uuin:rsit\' Pre!\i. 1997). l06-l07. here l07. quoted b)· kind permi!'lsion or o xrord Uni\'Crsil}' l' r<:!'lS.
  
  160
  
  A11n /.ollllcs
  
  Beron d her graced response to 1he awesome lll)'Steq• imo '""hic h she is d r.lwn. Eliz:ctbeth J e n nin gs p iciUres Mary sitting in ccsl olS)'· n ow that the terriCyingangcl has left h e r: She can T a ke comfort from the things she knows Though in h e r hcarl new loving b u rns Something she nc\'c r g;wc loman Or god before. a nd this god g ro,,•s Most like a man. She wond ers h ow To pray ~at all. wh al th a n ks to g ive And whom to give the m to. ~A lon e To all m e n'.s eyes I musl now go"' She thin k.s. ~An d by m rsclf must live With a str a nge child that is my own.'·~
  
  As it happens , she is n ot bereft o f.Joscph 's continuing love for her and h is support b ut s he had w consider th e p ossibility in the fi rst p lace. It h ardly m a kes sen se, therefore. to suppose lhat h er ecstaticallr e mbracing God's desig n s for h er is to become: subservient in becoming - han dmaid ." h is surely a state o f h onor. no! of subjection. And although Den ise l..e\'c rlo Y d ocs n o t exp licil.l)' m a ke the con nection between teaming to altain frcefa ll -and fl oat I into C r e;ttor Spirit's deep e mbrace. kno wing no effort earns I thai allsu rround in g g race"'!!., a nd wh at she says of Mary. that connection can indeed be mad e. M:tr}' in that embrace is a figure not of -ob edience"- whic h h as ne\'Cr been u n d erstood to b e a card inal (let alo n e a theological) virtue in Christian tr adition- b ut of greal cour.tge. lnd<:ed h e r - Magnifica !''' (Luke 1:4-6- f)5) insistently reminds us o f h e r cour:tge a.o; sh e allies herself with the d i,·ine dcfea.re Edwin Muir. lh(' Annunciation: in his Cofl«~<'d l~wu ( London: Faber and Fabe r. 1979). 22J- 24: and his lin<'$ about imoking God's Spirit to ·breathe a nd live." from the first stam:a of "l'he Annundation" in hi$ s ,-t.·dN/ ~»u (London: Fabe-r and Faber. 196;). 4 1-42. .w Denise Lt \1'rlo'l'. -The A'-owal," in Obliqm· Pmyt'l'$ (Newcastle upon Tpt(': Bloodaxe LWok.s, 1986). 70. Sc:e also the spirit within the natm al world in her potm. W Passagen (p. 80). "' LC\~flO\'. t\ IJMr ;, tilL N h¥. ~~~itA Et..-llii•J: 'lhti''· 87. !II
  
  161
  
  But we a rc told o f m eek obed ie n ce. ~o one mentions Cm •rabrc. The ctlgcndcriog Spirit Did n ot e nte r he r wit.ho ut consen t. God wa ited. She was free to accept or Lo refuse, choice integral to huma n n ess. Levertov goes o n w q ucr}' annun c:iations of o n e sor t o r a n othe r in most of our lives. We mar respo nd to these a nd act unwillingly. in sullen p ride, unco m· pre hcnding . o r tum away f rom the m in d read. wea kness, desp air. or relief: ~ord in a q• li\'c s continue. I God docs not smite th e m. I But the gates close. the palh\\";ty vanish es." Maq• h ad been much like othe rs. exce pt that sh e we pt o nlr fOr pity a n d laughed in joy: ~compassion and intelligence / fu.scd in he r. indivisib le."' Sh e did not quail b ut allc nded g r:wcl}' :md couneou.sly to what was be ing a.sked of h e r. in due Lime to pu sh oul into air. a Ma n-c hild needing. like an }· o l h e r. m ilk and lo \'e-
  
  but who wa.s God. This \\"as t he m inute no one spea ks of. whe n she could still re fu.se. A b r eath unbreat hcd , Sp irit. suspended, waiting. Howe \'c r. sh e n either cried h e r unworth ines..o;, n or appealed to h er lac k of stre ng th. Sh e n eithe r sub m itted with g •·iucd teeth. no l' r aged at being coe rced . Bravest of all h tumms. co n scnL illumined h e r The m o m fill ed '''it h its light . lhc lily glowed in it. and t he iridescenl h•ings. Consc nl.
  
  162
  
  A11n /.ollllcs co u rage unparalleled. o pe n ed he r u tterly.:n
  
  F'urthc nnore. Lhc rc is nothing in the biblical poetr)' of the .scen e d mt a bso· lu tdy separates ;:md d isting u ishes Ma ry from a ll othe r wo m en in her g raced a nd courageous consent to child-be:u ing. Indeed . insofar as wlm t is h a ppen· ing is a n a n licip:ttion of a r<"sLOrcd Ed e n , Ma ry n eeds to b e a llied with ··[ vc" ( h e rself .. !\•l ot h e r of all living" in Gcn 3:20) and n ot c m plored to denigrate · Eve" and the multip le possibilit ies of womc n'.s lives-thoug h we cannot say th;tt this h as b een much addressed in th eology of our tim e. let a lone in poet· ry.n A n ew Eden is being fo und over again: T he child hold s out both his hands fo r t he brcast•s apple. The snake is asleep.' ' No smll;.e poses a d a nger fO r th e lime- being. b ut t hat doC"s no t protC"ct t he- c h ild fro m possible fCar:<>. This God fi::a rs t he n ight. A child so te rrified he asks fOr us. God is lhc cry '''c Lhought c:-une fro m our own Pe r petual se n se- of loss. Can Cod be frighlcncd w be so alone? Docs lh:ll child d ream the" Cro ss?"· In fac1. hC" does not llC"C"d to be lho u ght of a.s so dreaming. whaten!r is lo be made of his future sig n ifica nce. Rather. it mighl ,,·C"II be thou h e .shares th e fa m iliar fears of child hoo d . fearing t h ou the lig h t will n ot return.
  
  ~ Ibid .. 87-SS. And in .. Ldter to a Friend" .she wrote. ..Courage knows the price or li\·ing. /
  
  Courage ilsclf ilia for m or innoccnce. oflru.st or fait h ~ (pp. I~ - 53, hc:re I5S). Sl"e also the mcmorv oflhc ·imrepid angel.. in Elizahrlh Jennings' ' ''Ork. lhe Visitation.· in Coil«trd PtorMJ. 46-47. » 1in~l Beattie, Gt~rl~ M1Jtl1rr. l:tvJ ,td;tt,..alr. A M orir"' Nnrmlit
  163 The night comes up o ve r yo u, faccle;o;s a n d fo r b idden. O\'e r the h :'l\,,.k sunk in carth an d the .sun drunk by the sea: a nd who can te ll. the c h ild said. no matter what they saywho can be sure thal the .su t• will r ise o n ano the r day?~ The lig h t in d eed n :turn.s, and fo r those who welcom e the child. su ch as Simeon (co mme mo rated ::at t.he Feas t o f C andlc m:ts. the Feast oft he Prcsentt and secon d p l:tcc in their prc.o;cntatjo n o f gifL.; to the child a n d making the ir a p p rop1;ate re \'Crl!n cc to the c hild and his mothc r..w Balthasar bows low, Melchio r kisses the c.·a n h. b ut Kasper sta n
  Wright . ..~ight and the Child." in he r Cnlf.torl«d l'Wm.• 19·,1- / Wt'.J ( ~b n ches tc: r: C.arcauet. 1994). 61·62, here 6 1. S<'t" also her poem ~ Th e World and the Chitd" (1' 1'· 36- l i ). }; On Simeon. ~ec: Denise Le\'Crto,·. IJJWtthi"g tlu· UiJtl.?· (Ne "'·castle upon TJ nc:: Bloodaxe Books. 1998). 65: ror a brief rc:llt.•-l.rt or Anw Claml>iU. ..A Procession at Candlemas." i u171' rfiiH-r BIXIIt rifl()t/1 c..,tury \Hn.v<'lll Pt>rl,~y. C({. Fleur Adcock ( London: Falx·r and F:!lx r. 1987), 1 5<~-58. here 1!>4, where ~he ~ peaks of the Virgin M:t~· carrring "fire as though it wt·re ~' nower." on the supposition th:tt God -might ac:tu:.Ur need a motl1e r." Denise l.c:w·rtm·'s I>Oiitica l acti\'lsm .artcr ht•r mo\·c: to the United State~ took many rorms. one of which was her p(l('m -Advent )966.. {:M,..ttV/ p,.,~~..,, 84), in which Rolx-n Southwdr s .. Burning Babe" as :tn image or redemption i~ U<msposcd to a n im;ab~ of horror in the burning bodics or c hild re n in Vietnam. ~ Carol Ann Dully. Th" \H~rltl$ H!f" (London: Picador. 1999). i'-10. jto
  
  H.O.• Tri/Qgy. I]:J-72. her~ 172.
  
  164
  
  A11n / .ollllcs
  
  h a\•ing b ee n r aised by G od to a t ra n siOnncd li r~ and a ne w fo rm of p r esence in huma n communit)'· H . D. h~ls a lr c:tdy made this p o int in h e r in im ita ble war befOre sh e names Maq • o f Magdala or recounts hc1· meetin g with Kas pe r. \\'ril ing fro m the pe rsp ective of e nvisioning the n ·covc rC"d Pamdisc- of hurmm longing . sh e describes the resurrectio n as a ~ b ee-l in e" tha i g Ot's d irccll)' to plunder the ··honc rcomb" and b r ing th e aroma of ··myrrh and l:mlm.~" In the m ean ti me, so to spc.· ak. we can i1wo kc Oa\'id G ascoyne fo r o ur last wo rd, ask i ng th at Go d grant that we GiYe b irth to the world 's o nly Prince. Puu A f.'/t>rn ll.f . He \Vhose swo rdlike Wo rd comes no t to b ring us peace but war Within fO re ve r against falsehood :m d a ll fr.u ricid:d Wa r: 11
  
  1 " 11
  
  Ibid .. I2:J. Oa\'id G:-tscor ne. .. Hirth of a P rin ce.~ from his C'.oll.v:t.vl Pt~~r»u (Oxford : Oxford Uniw rsity Prfii . 1965): 170. quolcd br kind pcrn1ission ofOxtOrd UniversHr l'rtss. .
  
  Chapter 11
  
  The Muslim Mary John Kaltner
  
  Manr non-Muslims a rc s urprised to !cam th at Ma ry holds a p rominent p lace in Isla m a nd that ~·l usli ms ,·a luc and respect her as a role m o d el. He r h igh slahi.S is a p p arent in t he texts and traditions of lsl;un . a nd it h a.o; been OUl· w;ud ly c xpres..,cd br the communitr since it.s ro unding in the early .SC\'enth ccnlur)' CE. The Islamic sources that m ake reference to Mary a re the Qur'an. the h adith (autho ritati,·e t raditions). and ccrt:,in cx lra-canonic;ll texts. The Qur•an is the sacred book o f Islam that was re vealed to the Proph e t Muhammad (570-632 CE) owr the course o f the l:tst twenty-t wo years o f h is life. t>.hry is mentioned in 70 of the 6300 \'erscs in the Qur\m, and only the n am es o f !\·loses. Abr.tham. a nd Noah appear more f reque ntly in the tex t. She is t he only woman m e n tioned b}' n am e in 1h e e ntire Qur'an . where she is rcJCrred to as Maryam. the Arabic fO n n of h e r name. I E.ach oft he 114 c h apters of the Q u r'an has ~l till e. and chapter 19 is identified as -Mar}'·" one of only g chapte r liLies that con Lain the name of a human being. 1\•farr is mentioned most commonly in the fo rmula ·:Jesus. son of Maq'."' b ut a number o f n arratives d escribe events in he r life in some detail. While the Qur'an provid es m ore in formation about h e r than the New Tcst.am cnt d ocs. it still docs not o ffer a complete biog-r.Lphy of Mary. This is si m ilar to the t reatment given to othe r biblical figu res m e ntioned frequent!}' in the Qur 'an such as Noah. Moses. Abraham. and .Jesus. The two lengthiest Qur 'an p:·t.'>sage.o; concerning M:uy arc fo und
  1
  
  This matche-s lhc: fonn or her name (.\l(l"rim..) round in Greek manuscripu or Mail and Luke: 1:2i.
  
  1~:55
  
  166
  
  j oh11 Kaltmrr
  
  they we re g:uhc rcd to ge the r into collectio ns in the earl}' cemuries of Islam. E\•cnlually several o f 1Ju:~e compilations o f h :•d ith achie ved a cano nical status that is second o n ly to the Qur'an. Each co ntains I ho u sand.s o f accounts of Muhamm:td•.s words and act ions t h at h:n-e exe rted e n ormous in Oue n cc o ver the lives ofi\'luslim.s throug hout h isto r y. Mary is me ntioned by name in a pprox· imately .sixty had ith. and these h :w e contributed much Lo th e im po rta nt role sh e p l.·f ar}' with Llle infa nt J esus h e ordered that it alon e be allowed to re m a in in th e K :.~ b a.'
  
  Mary in Popular Islamic Pie ty The imp orta nt role Ma ry plays in th ese tc xt.s is \'is ibJy m an ifcstc:d by Muslims in ~l host of Wll)'S as man)' places. te xts. and p raclices arc associa ted with h e r througho ut the Islamic world . Various s ites ide ntified with Mar)' h a\~ become im p ortanl pilg rimage locatio ns . som etimes fo r Muslims a nd Christians alike. Accord ing to traditio n. a tree and a well in the Cairo .sub urb o f M:-narin :• is ~1 loca tio n whe re Ma ry. .Jo se p h. and J esus foun d shade a nd wate r as they t Alia h Schleifer. MI'I'IJ' tJ;,• Wr.mv/ l'•~ttri.., of Mtm• (Louis\·ille: Fo ns Vitae. 199 7') . 2 3. ~ The his to ricityofthis tradition is challe nge-d by Schld fcr. Mt~ •J· JOt- 10ft.
  
  The Mu..dim Mary
  
  167
  
  escapcd f ro m Ki ng He ro d. The presence o f a chu rch a nd a mosq ue n earby. bo th e rected in ho n or o f Mary. u n derscores the im portance o ft he loc a tion for bo th fai ths . Also in E~n· p 1. the House of the Holy Family is a po pu lar p ilg r im· age d estination where C h ristians <md Muslims celebrate 1h e ir conunon respect for Mary at an tlnnual m eal. In Jerusalem. n ear St. Stephen 's Gate. is Mary's Bath. where c h ildless Muslim women often come to b athe. Then: is a lso-a gate honoring Mary a t 1 he famous Utna}·yad mosque in Damasc u s. Syria} Am)' G. Re m c n snyd er poin ts o ut 1h a t during the medie val period such inter· relig ious m ixing at locations celebrating Mary was somet h ing that sp read fa r and wide. laying the grou n dwo rk for presen t practices. ~Membe rs o f both fa iths could be fo und veneratin g Ma ry at sh rin es sudl as Tentudia in western C ast ile, Saidna)>a in Syr ia. Trap a n i in Sicil)'. on the island of Lampedusa. a nd a ll along 1he ro u te of the fl ight to Egypt- a m ingling of Mw;Jim s and Christians that in some cases continues to this d ar."" lndiil and Asi:t M inor contain m a n y Islam ic sanctuar ies dt:dicated to Ma ry. Duri ng the reign of th e Mugha l Emperor· Akbar ( 1556- 1605) the palace con· taincd images of.Jcsus a nd Mary. Th is is som eth ing that one \\'Ou ld not fi n d in 1he Arab homeland of Islam due to th e fait h •s stance again st depicting h uman form s. b ut it is sometim es fo und in Muslim com m unities in other places. From the sam e tim e period sce nes f rom Mar)''s life were occasionally used to illus trate Ar;tbic and Persia n m;umscripts, o n e of wh ich presents her sitt ing beneath a p a lm lrcc with !he c h ild J esus on he r knee. An im e rC"sting aspect of this sce n e is that it depicls h e r with a fl ame h :tlo a rou nd her h ead. wh ic h in Muslim Ind ian a r t n ormall}' indicates the person is tl prophet.6 Amon g the te xtual evid ence that cites and cdcbnn cs Mary a re a number o f Muslim pr.tycrs. h)'m ns. b a lla d s. a nd p oems coming from such d iverse p lace..; as S p a in . the Ouom:m Empi1·c. Egypt, :tnd the United States. Am ong the mo st inte rC"sting arc m e dic:\'al poems fro m Spain known
  • }'or inlbrn1ation ou .somc or the-se locations. sc:c T homas Michel. S:J .. "The Role of Marr in Popular Islamic OC\·otion i n South c.-asl Asia."' in Mlll'iu ,di'Hhrm'.•mt,,. ndi'J.fltt»J og,.r·. cd. Elio Pcrc:tto (Rome: Edi1.ioni M:arianum. 1987). 167- 7:.. here 169. ~ Amy G. Rcmensnydc:r, ~ch rist ia n C.apti\'c:s. Muslim Maidem. and r>.l:uy." Sf~ul•m• 82 (2007) 642- 77. here 671. r. Shaikh ·Abd AI U'ahid J>alla\·icini. ·eorrispondenzc Marianc nella Tradizione lslamka: Elcmenli 1x-r un Oia logo." Mm·itt ""IJ'f.'hmiJmt1 (C:d. Percllo). I19- 40. here 121. ' Amy G. Remc-nlin~'dcr, ~TM Colonization of Sacred Arc hitecture: T he Virgin Mary, MOliqu~. and Temples in Medien'tl Spa in and F..., rly Sixte-cuth-Centurr Mexico," in MMiu tmd ,\ ·u,.,<, S tti.,u cmd Outr:a:rb: Ndigi<m.• 1!.-.:f~nwtitm t~nd Srxi((/ 1\Jnmi llg in tfu• Aliddb- :\gl'.v. e d. Sharon Farmer :and Barbara Rol'<'nwdn (hhaca: Comc:ll Uni\'crl'ity Press. 2000), 189- 219.
  
  168
  
  j oh11 Kaltmrr
  
  Asp~cLo; o f popula r religiosit}' as.sociatcd with Mary c;m be see n in a number o f prActices and act i,·itic.s t h at Muslims engage in frequ e n t ly. Pr egnant wo me n o fte n a ppeal to Ma1·y fOr :L"isistancc, a n d m a n r Muslim g ir ls arc g iven the name Mary (or it.s equ ivale n t) by their potre n ts. Ne w mothers arc som et imes g ive n three d ;ttes to cat, t he same food a traditio n sta tes Ma ry ate upo n g iving birth to J esus. In \<\'e st J ava in Indon esia. 1he coutllr}' with 1he h ig hest numb c.'r of Muslims in t he world . an a nc ie nt practice h a.s young pr<"g n ant wo m e n withdraw fro m t heir fam iliar s u rro undings to p ray a nd fast in a rin m l called the ·· F~-1s1 of Siui Maq >am ... This r ecalls si m ilar :;actio n s by Ma ry m c n lioncd in the Qur'an th;H will be discussed late r. This practice predates th e advent o r Christia nity in Indonesia a nd t hen:fo re musl b e Is lamic in o rigin. Sim il:\r fasts h olve been noted in Bag h d ad . T e h ran . Lebanon . a n d Srria. It h as also b een ob se rved lhat h·ania n wo me n often p o.sscss statu es o f M a ry.~~. Man}' o r these p ractices a rc clear!}' related to prcg n anq a n d childb irth. and it is this particular asp ect o f Mary's life t h at is I he basis fo r muc h o f t he respect a n d hono r she receives with in Islam. The im por tant place he r pregn;w q · holds in the Qur'an is testimony to th is. as well as othe r ext ra4cano nical tr.td itio n s th;tl reinfo rce this Qur'anic lOcu s. O n e tradit io n r eporLo; tha t ).bry was o n e o r fo u r m iraculou s midwives who assisted KhadUah, Muhammad's wife, whe n she gave b irth to his d a ug hte r Fatima. This is a n in triguing scen e tha• p laces Mary in the prese nce o f two of t he most bdoYcd wome n in Islam, within a context thai h ighlig hts he r associ at ion ,,,.it h childbea ring and molhc r ho 0<1.9 Vario us Islamic: sects , especially in the Sh i ~a b ranch . have their o wn Mar ian c ult. a nd at times som e or their beliefs a nd practices fall outside the p an1m4 e le rs o f mainstream Islamic fa ith to suc h a degree that they are perceived as h e rclical by o the r Muslim :s. Mary is vcncr.ttcd as th e mothe r of God by :\ Turkish group kno wn as Lhc Kizilb ac:h . The No~ajris o f Syria cclcbr.tlc some feasts o r C hrisLian o rig in. including o n e in h o no r o f Ma ry4 Sim ila rly. ce r tain Bckthac:hi:s in Alb a nia a rc said to comme mo rate the Assum p tio n of Mar y on AugtL<;I 15 . a belief I h at is not h eld b y Muslims all)'"\Vhe re else in th e worl d.~'' A practice more commo n ly found i:s that o f in scribing words u ltercd b y Mary in lhe Q u r'an on one of the central arch itectural featu res o f a m o sque. Muslims c \'cr r whe re pray facing Mecc 1 fi\'c tim es a day. a n d the mihmb is a niche in the
  
  ht•re 205-206. For citations of ~ uch texis. s.cc T im Winter. "Marr in h lam... in Mtm: Tit<' Cmnpt ..u Romur<'. ed. Sar:lh Jane Boss (New York: Oxrord UuivCrsity l' rc:s~. 2007),· 479-
  
  :>02; Ro n lhrkai, "Une i1wocation musulmane a u nom de JC:sus et dr Mar ie." Ur.t•tu t /f! I'Ni.d ()l/Y. d ...• fMigiQru (l9SJ) 2!)7-68: Schl.eifer. Mn'J. 98- 99. !. T'h ese prac-lict"S :m: mentioned in l'allavicini. "Corrispondenze," 119- 20. :tnd Michd. '"Rolt' of Marr:· 17:'1. as wdl :tS RJ. McCar thr, MMarr in Islam." in MmJ 'f Plnu i11 Chri:rtitm ViuiQg" "' cd . Alber ic Stacpoole (Slough. UK: St Pa uf Publications; Wilton. Cf: Morehousc Barlow. ]982). 202-1 :~. here 207. • Barham Frt•ycr Sto~,·:lsser. H ·in.'lrn m llu: Q ttrfm . Tmdition.1. tm d b!l t:1f1TPI « t iMI (New Yort: oxrord Uni\·.::rsitr Press. 1994), so. tt P:.l llm·H:ini. '·c orr ispondr-nze." l?'l. 4
  
  The Mu..dim Mary
  
  169
  
  wall o f every mosq ue that helps orient I h e worship per toward the hoi}' city. These n iches a rc normally decorated with ela bo r ate geom etric designs a nd inscriptions. the 1:\lter o fte n take n from the Qur'an . One of the most p o pu lar inscriptions is Q u r 'an 3:37. whic h report..s Mary's words as a young woman living in the temple u nder the care ofZ.:tchariah, the father of.John lhe Baptisl. 11 So her Lord accepted h er g r acious ly. He c:tused he r to g row up wdl and gave h e r into the car e o f Z.achari;th. [ very time Zacharia h came to sec h e r in the chambe r he fOund her wi1 h provisio ns . He said. "Oh Mary. when.; d id you gel thi ~?" She a nswered. - (1 is from God . Truly God provides for whomeve r He wish es h'il ho m measure." One reason '''h}' th is is a popular inscription in tnosqltcs is that the word l ra n ~­ lated *chambe r,. is milnr1b in the origin al Ambic. But a n equ a ll}' imporlant reason is th ai Mary ex presses supre m e lr usl in God in this ' "e rsc. This quality is ;m essential mark offait h within Islam. a nd Muslims sec Mary as !he personifiCllion o f a true b eliever. En::r y c-Ja}' whe n they a rc in a mosque prayin g 10\V"Ard Mecca. countless Mu.slims around the '''orld face words spoken by Mary as they eng-.tge in o ne of the most important rituals o f their faith. A fin al e xa m p le o f Mary•s pop u lar a p peal can be Sl::en in the reported sig ht ings of he r <m the dome of the Ch urch of St. Mary in the Cairo .subu r b of a i-Zarlo u n bct\\'ecn 1968 and 1970. Many Ch r istians and Mu.slims claimed to have seen he r. and a numbe r of the m r eported being healed of various physical ;m d emotion al aihnents as a result of 1he expe r ie n ce. This is the best k no wn of a numbe r o f similar occurre nces in the Islam ic world whe re Muslims a nd C hristian s have sa id that Ma ry has a p peared to the m. Many of the practices and beliefs llmt have been d i.scu ssed he re involve C hristians and Muslim s inlerAcllng in \ \';t)'S that suggc.st th at Mary m ight b e able to func1ion as a nu'!cting point where m e m bers of the two f-a iths m ight com e togelh er. While this m ight be the case in som e circumst.:mces. it would be a m istake to O\'Cr·gen crAiii'.e a b out Mar>•'s potential as :1 figu re amund whom Muslims and Ch r i.stians c an u n ite. A s J a ne I. S m ith a nd Y\'onne Y. Haddad point out. Mary h ~-1.s not alwa}'.S p layed a conciliatory role bc l\,'Ccn the '-'''0 g roup~. and it i.s imp ortanl 10 ackno\\'ledgc that fact. 4
  
  Despite th e insLa n c<"s of common appreciation of the Virgin ;u the le \'cl o f p opular piety. ho we\•e r. C h risti:-ms and Muslims fo r m anr centuries h ave :tlso us<"d her as a vehicle fO r the ex pression of their mutu al d eep mistrust a nd misu n d erstanding. Mary o ften has b een at the cen te r of polemical contro versies b etween C hri.stians and Muslims.11 11 It
  
  All translations or the: Qur'au a rt' mvo,,·n. f:mc I. Smith and Ymnnc: Y. Haddad. "The Virgin ~larv in J.slamic Tradition and 'Commentary." Tlu ,\flulim U1nltl79 ( 1989) 161-Si. here: 185.'
  
  170
  
  j oh11 Kaltmrr
  
  The Annunciatio n to Mary in Islam IL has a lread }' b ee n m e nt ioned that cv~ nl s related to Jesu s' conceptio n and birth arc d escribed in Qur•an 3:37-47 a nd 19:16- 33. This materia l is .suppfemc nu:d by c xtra-Qur'anic t rad il ions that expand the sto ries and fi ll in gaps . E~l c h o f the Q ur'an passages p r esen ts a n accou n t of t he annunciation to Ma r )' o fJ csu s' birth. b u t they a re two d istinct and sepa ra te stories with fe w d e taits in com mo n . The fi rst passage beg ins with t he .scen e that h as alread y been d isc u ssed d escribing Zach ar iah's role taking care of Mary in the te m p le . ,,·here s he is m ir.t.c ulo usly p ro,•id ed with fOo d by Go d . T h e rest o f th e passage (3:38- 47) is a doub le a n nunciat io n. with the first d irected to Zach ariolh a nd the seco n d to Mar y. JI!Thc n and th e re . Zach aria h called upo n h is Lo rd sariug . ·Mr Lo rd , gratll m e go od oOSpring from Yo u r5elf. T r u ly, You hear a ll prayers." -Wfhen Lhc a ng els ca lled to him wh ile h e sto o d p r aying in the c h a m ber. .. God g in·:s }'OU Lh c g ood news of.Jo h n . who will co nfirm a wo rd fro m God. He will be noble . chaste . a nd a p rophe1 from a m ong the righ lcous ." ~" H e said . -Qh Lord. ho w is it that I mig h t ha\'e a son wh e n I a m old and m y wife is b arre n ?" He [an ;ang el) s.'lid , ~T i lli s it is. God does wh at He wills ." 11 He said , ~My Lo rd. m a ke fo r me a sign." He said , "Yo ur sign is that you will not be able to spea k to a person fo r I h rec d ays exce pt by gestures. Rememb er )'Out' Lo rd much . a nd p r.tisc Him in lhc e \'e n ing and the m o rning ."' ~ll'T he a n gels said . "Oh Mary. God has cruly ch osen you and purifi ed rou. He has c hosen ) 'OU a bove a ll olhc r wo m e n. "~Oh i\•l ary. b e o b ed ie n t to yo u r Lord . Prostrate you rself a nd be amo ng tho se who b ow d own." --IIT his is p art o f lh e h id d e n news We revea l to you. Yo u we re~ not wil h them whe n they cast loLS to sec wh ic h o f Lhc m would ta ke c•u·e of Mary, no r we re you with the m wh e n the)' disputed :lm ong t h c mscl \'cs.- ~ ~'T hc ~angels said . " Oh Nbr)'. God gives you lh e g ood n e \l'S o f a word fro m H im. H is name will be the Messiah J esu s. the son o f Mary, who will be e m inent in lhis world a n d th e n ex t, and will be o n e o f th ose b roug ht near [to God]. "6l·le sh all spea k to peop le from t he cr.tdle a nd in h is late r years. and he will be one of 1he r ighteo u s .... 11Sh e said. "M)' Lo rd . h ow ca n I ha\'e ~1 c h ild wh e n no m a n has touc h ed m e?" He said, ~T i nt s it is. God c reate;<; ,,·h at He wills . If He decrees som el h ing. He o n l)' need sa y ·Be!• ;md it is." T h e d isc ussio n h e re will be lim ited to the :mnuncialion to Mary. b ut lhal scen e is dearl)' tied 10 th e a n nunciati011 to Zad 1arla h .1' In lh e Ne w Testa m e n!.
  
  II
  
  For more: detailed a nal}'Si$ of t he Qur'an lc:xts. Soe"C John Kaltncr. I.JiutH:d b ulrurl:J b mu: 1111 l lltmdllclicm It~ tiJr Q •triw j~r IJiblr!Vadr•'f (Collegevil le-: Liturgical Pr<".S.1. 1999). 207- 39.
  
  The Mu..dim Mary
  
  171
  
  Luke (J :II -20) h as a .similar anno uncem e n t to Zac h aria h, but M:tr}' is no t a pari of iL That Go spel also iden tifies a kinship re lationship between Mary a nd Zacharia h 's wife Elizabeth, b ut th i.s detail is not present in the Qur•an . whe re the Iaue r is not n a m ed . In some c xtra-Qur'anic t raditions, ho wc\'er. he r name is g ive n and she is related to Ma ry. with some even s.:.tying ihey are sisters. In their words to Mary 1h e a ngels h igh light t ho.sc qualities that set he r apart a n d m a ke h e r special. In p a nicular. she is p ure a nd therefo r e c ho se n b)' God . Based on th is Qur'an p assage a nd ol he r traditions ~1bout h e r, purity is one of the domina n t c h ar.lctc ristics o f Mar}' in Islam. The a ng els a lso instruct h er about ho w sh e .sho u ld be h ave-M a ry is to be obedie nt. prostrate he rself, <m d bo w d o wn. Bo wing and prostr.uing a re essent ial dcm c nL'i of Islamic prayer, a nd so Mary is being e n couraged to
  172
  
  j oh11 Kaltmrr
  
  receives a m iracu lous prO\rision of fo od. In ex tm·Qur•:mic Mus lim tr.tdilion.s J osep h takes care o f h is cousin Marr because Zachariah is too old for 1h e task. Some sources h ;we them prayin g together at the temple as a \v-ay of expressing the spiritual, and 1h crcfore non sexual. n ature of their relal ionship .a T h e other ann u n ciation scene in the Qur'an is fou n d at 19: 16 - 21. in the c h a pte r named arter he r. lf>Rc m cmbc r Mary in the b ook. When she withdrew from her family to :t place in the cast ''and took co ver from them, We Sl'lll to her Our spirit. which appe~ucd to her in the fo rm of a n o n nal person. I$She said, ··) take refuge in t he mercifu l one from you if" you fear Him."" MIJ-Ic said. ~ 1 am onJy a messenger from )'Our Lord, to g ive you a righteous .son." 'l"Sh c .said. WHow can I h ave a son " 'hen n o man has touched m e and I hav~ not been u nch ;tste?" ·~ 1 1-le .said . *T ints il i.s. Your Lord .said. ·Jt i.s easy for Me. We will m a ke h im a sign fO r people and mercy fro m Us.' It is a n accomplished facL" 1;' He re there is no referen ce to Zach ariah or Ihe b irth o f.Jo hn. The location i.s also d ifferent because the scene d oes not take place in the mihmb. Rather. Mary gOt's off lo a place in lhe Ct she simply went off with no precise d estin ation. \Vhalevcr he r location, she is soon visited by an angel, wh ich is d escribed as God's sp irit in human fo rm. This m ay be the m ost distincti,·e aspect of the p as· sage. p a rticularly in light o f the m essage h e' brings 10 Mary. He d escribes h is m ission as ~to giYe you a rig hteous .son," whic h could theorcticail)' mea n that, in h is now-huma n fo rm, h e will help b r ing about the pregn a n cy in the usual war. Rut Muslim comm e ntators h a\'e never considered this l.o b e ;t correct way of reading the text. The virginal conception of J esus is a cent rat article o f Islamic faith. a nd this pa.ssag<: has always been in tel-preted in ligh t of it. The q u c-!;tjon of p recisely how Mary became pregnant h ~-l.S generated much d iscussion. The Amhic word for "spirit" (nth) c~m also mean - breath." and this double m c;ming h as contr ibuted to how m a n r sch olars h;wc u n d erstood th e text. One interpretation .says that the angel b reat hed into Mar)•'s m o mh. a nd when h is breat h reached h e r belly she conceived . Oth ers 111ain1a in tiH1l thC" angel h ie'" into h e r slecYc. pockC"I. or a tc:tr in h e r dress and she conceived . l11csc: traditions arc di.s.cusscd in Smith an d Haddad. MThe Virgin Marr," 166. •~ At times in the Qur';m God .Sp<'<Jks using the fi rsl person plural rorm. bc:c;lsionally. a.s in \'Crse 21 or this passa1,~. the fom1s shin between third prrson sinJ:;u lar (MHc") an d first
  
  11
  
  p<'r.son plural rwc''). This is couunontr understood to be an example or the ndi"ine we." which is :l \\'dk u tcslcd usage- {cf. Gen l:26). and in no ;,·;ay should it be St-'t'n ;ls a challrngc: to Islam's monotheistic bclid.
  
  The Mu..dim Mary
  
  173
  
  On~ inter p rete r h as suggt"stcd t hat Mary rc m ovc:d he r g arme nt 1.0 bath e, a nd the angel bkw into it while it was o n th ~ g round. Afte r fin ishing the b ath. she p ut lhe c:lothing bac k on a nd b~cmne p rcgnanl. A mo re unustml in tcrp rcla· Lion h as proposed that the angel bl~w d ireclly into he r vulna <m d cau sed h e r pregn;mcy. A not he r aspect o r the sto r}' thal scholars have deb:1.tcd concerns the le ng th o f Ma ry's preg n a ncy. 1\ ccause il is a m iraculous co nceptio n so me ha \'C arg ued t h at it.o; duratio n was equa lly unusual. with some sug gesting it lasted no long er than an ho ur. Uoth o f the :mnunciatio n .scen es hig hlight th e t rust a nd submissio n that a rc the essen ce o f th ~ Islamic \'ic w o f Mary. In ~ach case. whe n s he o~ects to 1h e ne ws o r he r pregn:.n cr she is told that Go d can do anything. Bo th limes, h e r o~ ect i on is g reet~d wit h the wo rds - Thus it is," ind ica ting
  The Nativity ofJesus in Islam \'\.'c have seen thai e \'e n ts related to .Jesus• conception a rc d escribed in Qur'an 3:37-47 and 19:16-2 1. supplemented by cxtra-Qur'anic traditions. B)' contras t. the only explicit Qur•a nic m e n t io n of j esus' b irth a p p e;u-s in 19:22-..!J3. and the re arc no re fe r e n ces to J esus' b irth in the had it h literature. The .single Qur\mic:: rdCrc:ncc to J esus' b irth follo ws immediately a fte r the annuncia tjo n l>Cen e in clmptc r 19. 1~Shc
  
  co nce ived him and withd rew \\•it h him to a d islanl place. 1 :'r'J"h e birth p<m g s led he r to the trunk of a p alm tree whe re she c r ied. "Oh, if only I had d ied before this and h ad been fO rgo tte n . unre mc mbe r ed ! .. 1 'The n [a \'Oice) called o u t to h e r rro m bdow h e 1·. - o o no t g rie ve. Your Lo rd has p laced a strea m b e neat h you. ~Shake th e 1runk of lhc palm tre~ and it will drop fresh ripe dates u p on you. 1"[ at. drink. and be consoled . If you sho uld sec anothe r p e rson sa y. •( h :we Yowed :t fast lo the mercifu l one a nd I will not speak to a nyone today.' ,. ·nshc carried him [Jesus) lo h e r people who said . ~oh Ma ry. you ha \'e don e som e thing strange! 7~h s ister or Aaron. your fathe r was not
  
  174
  
  j oh11 Kaltmrr
  
  ,,,.icked nor was your moth e r unchaste."' :~:'The n she poim cd to him. They said . - How can we talk to a child in the cradle?.. The s lory'.s beginning is .similar to that of the a nnunci::1tio n !hat preced es it, with Ma ry d ist:m cing h e rself ret furt he r. He re. too. Muslim co m m e nta· to r s h :t\'C sugg e.o;l.ed a number of locations . including Jerusalem, Helhlc hcm. a n d Egypt. The text indicates it is a remote a rea because Mary finds hcn>elf a ll a lone. thirst)' a nd h ungry. 'v-ish ing s he we r e d ead. There has been muc h d iscussio n ~lmong sch o l;trs a bo ut Maq •'s wo rd s in \', 23, whic h m ight pe rhaps indicate h e r unwilling ness to accept the a ng el's m ess-age a nd subm it he rself to God's will. Th is intc r prc.•t:'llio n has fOund lillie .supp ort in Islamic exegesis of the ve r se. Rmh~r than taking h e r anguish :-ts a n e xpressio n of" h e r lack of"b dief o r tru.st. m o..o>t explan ations point be)'Ond he rself. suggesting fo r inst.;mce h e r concern t lm t others m ig ht tn ista ke n ly ca llJ cs\L<; the Sotl of G od . There a rc some unustm l cle m e nlS in t his p:•ssage. One is t he ' 'o ice Ihat spc;,ks from below M:-try inn·. 24--26. So me inte rpreters h ave u n derstood t h is to be t he a ng el's \'Oice . while oth e rs maintain it is Ihe \'Oice of.Jesus 1r-ying to as.o;ist and co n.sole h i.s m oth e r ;u a difficult lim e. The Iaue r o ptio n is fa,·orcd by mo st scholars. who sec • h is as Ihe first of m a n y m iracles Jt~su.s ",.ill p e rfo rm througho ut his life. As stratlge as the no tio n of ;• s pea king infant might be , this is precisely what .Jesus does in the n ex t ve rses afte r th is p assage. Whe n Mary's people ask. ~ Ho''' can we talk 10 a child in the crad le?'' the ne wb orn J esus resp o nds wit h a state me nt a bo u t who he is. ""~ I
  
  am the se rvant of God. He has g iven m e t he boo k and ha.s m ad e m e a p ro phe t.. !UJ·Ie has made m e blessed where ve r I m ar be. ;md has comm;mdcd m e 10 o b serve p rayer -an d atm.sgiving for a.s lo ng as I live. 31 LJ.Ie h <&s m ade m e] obedie n t 1.0 mr mothe r a nd h as no t made m e pro ud o r m ise r a ble. ~l'e~1cc upo n me the day I was b orn. the d ny I will d ie. a nd t he day I will be r.tiscd to life."
  
  He n :. too, we ca n see ::m ex a m ple o f the Qur'an·s tende ncy to lslamizc b ib lical characte rs, as noted earlie r. Jc:c;u s is told to observe praye r a nd to engage: in a lm sgiving. two of Lhe ftve pillars o f Islam that a rc required o f all Muslims. Anoth e r unu.sua l feature o f th e sloq• is t hat Mary's people: refer lo he r as ~.s is· te r o f Aamn." This is a stra nge Iitie that h as b een inte rpre ted in d iffc rc.•nl ways. No n-Mu.slim co mme n tal.o rs h ave sometimes sugg e.o;led that thi.s is c \·idcnce of confusion between Mary. .Jesus' mothe r. a nd Miriam (th e Hebre w equiva lent o f Mary). lhc siste r of Mose..o; and Aaron ( Num 26:59). Altc rn a t i n~l)'. othe rs h otvc sa id il could be :t refe re n ce to someone n a m ed A:uon who wns related to Ma ry. pe r h aps h e r o wn b rothe r. A fun he r option i.s t h at the lil lc rdCrs to sp iritua l lineag e. n o t acltm l kinship . ~hry is a pe rson o f f
  The Mu..dim Mary
  
  175
  
  h has a lready been noted t h at some of t he elements of this story, like its setting und er a palm tree and Mary's fast. han': sometimes been a part of popular Islamic pit:Ly related to Mar y into I he prc~enl d ay. The palm tree t radition may bC': related to what is fou n d in an :tpocryph;tl Christian writ ing known as the': Gospel of Pseudo-Mallhr.w. In thal work a pa1m t ree obeys the child Jesus• ord ers to bow down an d refresh Mar)' wil h iL'> fruit and then Lo o pe n iL'> roots in ord er to quench th e family's tJ1irsL. 11; This text comes from somet ime between the sixth an d eighth ccnlttr ies a nd is probablr b ased on the Prolevangr.Jium ofjame.r and I he /njan9 GtJJfrel ofThom tu.11 When we compare this Qur ';.m mate rial with the Ne''' Testament trAditio n s surrounding jesus~ conception an d birth it is clear t h at the Qur'an texL.; p ut emphasis on Mary being ;tlonc at critical moments in h er life. In pan icular. Joseph's ;:1bsencC': is striking. He p lays ;t kC)' .supporting role in the New TC"slamcnl. but in I he Qur'an it i.s n ot e \~ n.stated thal.shC': is engaged to be m:lr· r icd at the time ofhea· preg tlan cy. She ha.s withdrawn a nd is a ll nJone whe n she conceives and gives b irl h to .Jesus. We have seen that Joseph appe~us in other Islamic I rAdition.s. b u t in the Qur'an Ma ry i.s a young woman ' "ho goes through I his experience by he rself. The absence o fJo.seph. her .soliL:tt")' status. ~md the m irAculous pro vision of food on se\•eral occasions make apparent Mary's total depend en ce': on God in t he Qur•an. What happe n s to h er in the mihrab. whe n sh e withdrAws, a nd undt~r the palm tree indicates t im ! sh e d oes not n eed huma n help because God is p rolccting he r :tnd is responsive to her needs. This requires complete sub m is..-.ion a nd t rust on llcr p art as sllc faces d ifficult circun1stances ~\ l011 c . b u1 not without d ivine help.
  
  Issues and Implications for Muslims and Christians In two frequ enLI)' cited pa.ssagc:s the Qur'an rdCrs to Mary as a sig n. "Remem ber the one who g uarded her chastity. \t\t'c: breathed Our spir it in1o her and made he r and h er son a .sign to all peop le" (21 :9 1: cf. 23:50). The evidence from the Qur•:m a nd other Islamic .sources indicates that one imp ortant way Mar)' fun ct.ions as a sign is through her obedience a nd t rust. Because she believed and did not doubt. God•s 111cssage. she ga,·e birth to J csu.s. who i.s revered :t.s a
  
  •• Sulci man A. Mourad. ~rrom Hellenism lo Christianity and Islam: The Origin ofl he ~ 1 m Tree Story Conc.-rning M:arr and Jc:~us in the GOlipd or P~cudo·MaHh<:w and the Qur':m.~ o,.;.. Chri.Jtitm~.r 86 (200'!) 206- 16. Mourad argues that !he Grt':ek myth or l.cto s labor a nd Apollo's birth is the: original source oflhl" d u islian and Mu~l im lraditions. 1; For chr-.SC' three apocryphal gospel~. see Oscar Cuihmum. "inranq Go.sp<'ls." in Nn" ·1~JJ""'""' :lf>OC..Tplt
  ,$
  
  fJ!'•<'IId~·.\tliU/1.-ro• S«' I A6~.
  
  176
  
  j oh11 Kaltmrr
  
  grc;tl prophcl in Islam. Muslims a lso m ainLain !hal Mary was born wit ho ul sin. •• b elie f I haL is supported by a h ;tdith that slates. "[vel}' c h ild that i~t b orn is to u ched by SaLan and this touch nu kes il c ry. e xcept Ma r y and he r son ." This puts Mar)' in an e xalted position, but C h ristians should a,·oid associating it with the Catholic doctrine of t he lmmacul.ue Con ception. That belief holds that Ma ry. unlike every other person. was b om withoul o r ig inal sin. Because Islam docs n ot han~ a doctrine of o r ig inal sin ~hr}''s sin lc.ssn css funCLion.s in a d if fen:nt war. a nd that d istinction must be kco,pt in m in d . Two quesl ions :tbo UL Ma r y that h;t\'C allr.tcled the atlcntio n of sch olars arc related to Mary's sin lcs..o; nature and h er ro le as a sig n : (I) Where d oes Mary rank :lmong :lll wom e n ? (2) Was Mary a prop he tess? In Qur'an 3:42 the a ng els te ll Mary that God has chosen her a bo \'<: all women. This led to a d e b ate over whether she is the b est woman o f :~II time or just he r time. Prom inent scho lars througho ut h istor)' h a\'e come d o,,·n o n b o th sid es of the issue, and the mauer is complicated by a lm dith that lists Mary ots one of the fou r g reatest wo m e n of :\II Lime. T he o ther three a rc Muha m mad 's wife Khad ijah, his d aughte r Fatima, a n d Asiya. t he": ,,-ife of the t>haraoh u n d er whom Mose;o; served. T h ere is also a had ith in wh ic h the Proph et Muhammad tells Fatima thai Mary will be the g r~Hcst woman a m ong those in p a r adise. T h e ch o ice h as gen er:\lly come d own to eit he r Mary o r Fatima
  1!.
  
  tt
  
  Smith a nd Haddad. t he Virgin Mar r." 179- 80. For the opinion thai Fatima is lhc prc'<:minent woman. sec Jane Dammen McAuliffe, ~ch osen of All Wonwn: Mary and Fatima in Qur':mic Exege~is.~ !Jimrw/JridiaM 7 (1981) 19-28. her<' 28. For a ,·icw that ramrs Marr. St"C Schleifer-. MtwJ. 63.
  
  The Mu..dim Mary
  
  177
  
  m e n and wo m en. In add ition. cn::n in the un likely evenl thal I he texts arc m ean I to exclud e women. il is in re feren ce to those who ha,·e been senl be fo re Muhammad. n otlo those who mig ht c:::om c a fter h im.'N T h e Qur'an has a lso been used to su p port the idea that Mar)' was a prophel· cs..o;. lkaring the heading ~The Prophets."' chapter 21 m e ntions e ighteen indi· viduals eithe r hy name or tille (including Mary). Every sing le one of the m b ut Mar)' is offici-ally recogn ized by Islam as a prophcL Those who a rgue fo r h e r prophetic status ask wh)' she wou ld be found a m ong su ch comp:-tny if she were not one of 1he m.?1 Elsewhere. scholars h:lve maintained that Mary is a proph e t br \·irtuc of sim ilarities between her lift: story and Muhanunad's. or becau..o;c sh e exh ibits certain aspects that arc shared by a ll p rophcts.2~ The simplest a rg ume n t that can be made for Mary being a prophel is that God delivered a message to he r, b ut some counte r that it wa..o; only an announcemen! ofl.h c coming prophet.Jcsus a nd thcr·cforc not lruly ;*prophetic mes..o;agc. Among those who disagrt'e h'ilh th is Ia u e r l'icw are two med icv
  178
  
  joh11 Kaltmrr
  
  and shorl·lin:d one. but th~ir argum cnu in sup port of Mary's proph cthood show th;n there was d is.agreC"mcrll with the mainslream vie w th at has contin· ucd to d ominate into the presen t day. The fact 1her were living in Andalusia. fa r from the birthplace a nd cente r of the Islamic world, probab l)' p layed a role in enabling them to formui;Hc and oOCr an ahcrnative position. A recent defense o f Mar)' as a prop h cless ha..o; been put fOrwa rd b}' Aliah Schleifer in her 1997 book Mtny lhtt B/l~sstd lli1gin ofl:dam. She sars thai the cvi· dcncc docs not allow us to know fO r certain whethe r or nol Mary was a prophet· css, b UL the" stro ngest and mosl cohesive a rg u menLo; arc those IJlal accep t her prophcthood. Sh e bases I his on the text of Qur'an 3:42. where God chooses Mary ;\bO\'c all o the r women, a nd Lhc Jmdith that S'?.; One fina l aspect of M:try's id entity to consider is that of mediator. Com she scn·e as a bridge for d ialogu e between Muslims and Ch r istians? There arc m any sim iluities in the wars the membe rs of both faiths td I her story and celebrate Iter lifC. so it a p pears site has the potential to bring them closer togethe1·. For th:tt potential to be realized, each side needs to :tc kn owlcdb~ and respect the unique perspective the ot he r side bri n~"S to the co1wersation. Ch r ist ians must avoid \'icwing t he Muslim Mar}' as a dcr i,·ati\'c distort ion of their own Mary. and Muslims sho uld not sec the New Testament i\•fa ry as a theological aberration that the Qur';:m n eeded w correct. Marston Spe ight d escribes the m iddle way to be adoptcd~6: Su ch a n approach requires that we not think of lsl;un (coming l;uer than Christianity) as "borrowing" from Chri.sl ia n ity in its elaboration oflhc figure of Mar)', bul rather that we consider both Islam a nd Ch ristianity as d r:n"ing upon a common store ofin fo n nat ion and inspiralion. a fund of material that goes beyon d eithe r what the Bible says or " 'hat the Qur'an sa)'S aboul Mar y. On !he Christian sid e it is imponant t.o recognize thai 1h e o pportunities a nd c halle nges will val'}' b)' denomination. Prote.stan t- Mttslim rclal ions l1:we been less complicated by Mary because she doe~ not p lay as sig n ificant a role in the economy of salvalion fo r most Protestants. who also do not generallt· p rofCss belief in Mary•s lmm;\culate Conception. Assumption, or pe rpc1ual virginity.'n These articles o f fa ith arc significant within Ca1hofic doctr ine and a rc not
  
  5
  
  SchlC'i rcr. Mm-y. 94.
  
  ~ Spt.ight. "Mar}·. MothC'r orJ estts.." 26. r. Tl1is i.s..utc i.~ discu.s..1cd in Tim Win! cr. ~Putc h ra ul Luna: Some Reflections 011 the Marian 11tcme in ~ l uJ>Iitn· Cathol ic Dialogue," Jrnmll'lloff.'nrm<'rdrrtl Stud;.-. 36 ( 1999). 439- &.J.
  
  The Mu..dim Mary
  
  179
  
  shared by Muslims. Nonethdess. Catholics a re reminded by te;tch ingssuch as the Vatican II d ocument Nu!ltm Adnltl- the 1965 Dcclaralion o n the Rd:Lt ion of Lhc Chu rch to Non·C hristian Relig ions-that Muslim s share their respe-<:t a nd love of Ma ry. a nd they an: urged to work towa rd improving rclalions wilh Muslim s whe never possible.?..~ The church a lso loo ks u po n Muslillls \\'it h respect. They worship tJ1c one God living and subsistent. m erciful :Uld alm igh ty, creator of h eaven a nd <:arlh, who h as sp-oken to humanity a n d 10 whose decrees. C\'Cn the hidden ones. t he")' seek to s ub tnit th e m selves whole-heartcd ty. just ;ts Abraham, to "'ho m Lhc Islamic fai th readily rclales itself. submitted to God. The}' ve n e r;\te J esus as a proph et. e ve n though they d o not acknowledge him as God. :•n d they ho nor h is ,·irgin m o ther Ma ry and even somelim es de,·outlr call on h e r. Furt hermore t he)' a wait 1h e day ofjudgm e nL when God will r'e
  ts 2fl
  
  The: followi ng quotation is from Norman P. Tanner. cd .. Ormwr ojt!u &11n•miml Cmuui!J. 2 \'Ois (Washington. DC: Georgetown Uni,·ersity J>rcss. )990). 2.969-70. Maur:a Bearden. ~A mhass;tdor ror the Word: Marr as a Bridge for Dialogue Bc:lw.::en Catholicism and Islam." Jm.,·•ull t{ J£nrwmLnl.SJorrlit.• 4 1 (20().1) 18- .38. h er~ 19-20.
  
  Chapter 12
  
  Losing Mystery in History: T he Challenge of Recalling the Nativity Thomas O'Lough lin
  
  -\<\-'hal do we know about the origin s o f j esus?,. Confronted with this qucstjon, m ost people would offer <1 simil;n rep ly- wheth er they are Christians asked b)' someone curious abm1t1hc origin s ofChrisunas. or sclwlars "'orking on the q u e.sl for the h istorical Jesus. The ustml reply would p oint to the documen· l.'lfl' sources from e.'trly Christian times and suggest th at the a nswer is to be foun d in -I he Bibk." -th e New Testa m e nl." ''the Go.o;pds." o r in the Gospel:ot of Mallhcw and Luke. So. just a.s the .schola r tr efforLo; to search for the h istorical J esus evolve into quests for the h istoric;,l clemenLo; in carl)' texts that still sur· vi\'e, our qucsLo; fOr information a bOlll the nati\'it}' ofJc-sus become searches for the whistorical basis" of Mouthew and Lukc. 1 some ti mes combined with a study of the theological significance ofJ esus' birth within those documents.~ This procedure h as b een e.o;pccially widespread a mong Catholics during the Iaue r h alf o f the- twc nlieth century in both p astor.tl and ac;ademic circles.ll Su ch an approach h as much to commend it. not least because historical ex pia· natio n is a dominating feature in o ur cultural la ndscape.~ but il runs lhe risk of silently invoking two rmYor historical assumplions-1h cmsel\'e..o; mytJ1s with in o ur c ulture-inherent in an)' quest fOr origins. The fir:<>t assumption is th;H if we know .. ,,,hat h a p pened back then" itl the p ast. then we know the significance of the event: the happening equates to the significa n ce. Put crudely. if we know thatJcstL'i was born at a certa in time and in a .specific set of circumstances. 1hen 1l1a1 is the meaning of Christmas. In other words. if we know a bo ut the o rig inal C\'enl. then w e know what the commemoration is a bo UI, and. indeed . why there is a commemorat ion: it is a w.simplc" recollection of~facts."
  
  1
  
  St~
  
  the introd u cto~· rc:marb ofJohn J>. ~ l dc
  MmgimliJ<'rtJ: /UIIu•l/l.it~g lh, f/i.JIIniml
  
  .fr:nu. 4 \'Ois (Xt"\,. York: Ooublc:-da)'. l99l-2009), 1.2 1-~1 . ? Sec R:aymond E. Brown. T/1" JJiTth of lh<' Mo.•·illll: .<\ Cmn»•n•trrry M MilUMw mtd L•tk, , r<:\'. «
  1111' !Jifmtry Nurmti~>t.\
  
  ill
  
  } For an example of this approach. see Hubert J. Rkhards, T/u f"'il1>/ Chri..tmm.: n 'll..,t Nmlly 11tJ/'fJfflnl? (London: Fontana. 197.1). 1 On t hi~ alip<:ct of the qut.!1l Jbr lhe hililor-ica1 j l"su.s.. lit:<: E.L. Krasc,·ac, ~Quc-.s.ti ng for the Hilitorica1 Jesus: Nc:C"d We Continu<·? ~ /)t,clrim· rmd l.ifr51 (2001). 590-60.1.
  
  lSI Second. t here is an :lssumption about historical change, na mely. 1h al what actually h ;tp pencd is best understood and reflected in the ear lie.st accounts that su n· i n~ . These earliest documents form the primitive , and tlu~riffJn• the m ost genuine core of infonnalion. whereas e \'ery othe1· dement in th e memory should be seen as a de,•d opment from (or accn:t ion to) that primary layer. Put simply: distil Matth ew and Luke for whaLC\'er history m ight be ~ be hind " or ··conta ined in" th eir infancy narrat in::-s. the n arrange the whole tradition as growing from I hat core and those n:trratives. Herein lies the fund:tment::ll d riYe be h ind so much labor o n the biblical tcxt.s o ve r t he p ast two centuries: try to pecJ back the conununity's i magi n a tin~ embetlishmcnts-"accretions" a re always suspect within this philosophical model- and we will be left with ~the truth": p u re. simple, a nd f-actual! These various quest.. -; for the historical Jesus have dominated theological scholarship for the best p a rt of two centurie..-;, b ut. for the most pan. this has had liLLie impact olllsidc th e theologians' village: m ost churchgoing people seem quite h<1ppr to bdie ve thatJ e..-;us w:•s born in Bethlehem. said many wise things. a nd d ied on Calv·.try.~ H owe\'e r, this ea..-;n;oing. widc;o;pread acceptance of the early churches' tr aditions as ~..-;implc" histo ry often balks at three poinl.s: first. the m iracle stories: second. t he accounLo; of the resurrection thal '''C eel· ebratc liturgicallr at Easter. a nd third . the wondrous stories :tbo ut the b inh that we cele b r.tle titurgicaUy at Ch ristm:•s. Lc;wing asid e t he question of the m iracle storie..o;. we arc confronted ,,,.ith a profoundly iro nic sihmtion. For most of the g ospels. :tnd most of the rear when we read the m liturgically, the 1 m~ or· ity or p eople a rc not bothe red br historical questions. Yet the two occasions in the year. [aste r and Christmas. when we most emphasize t he Chr ist·cvcnt. by the liturgical memoq' Laking on a histo rical fO rm, are the \'c ry t ime..-; when people a rc troubled by those issues thou belong to the quest for the h i.s torical J esus." Here. I intend to focus on just one of t hese moments o f m e.mory-1h at Sllrround ing ihe n ati,·ity-but h'hal fO llows a ppli<:s to bo th festi\'
  "Getting Back to Basics" The end eavor of gelling back to ~the ba.sic truth of what C hristnms is a bo ut.. sounds both attr:\ctin: ::and sensib le. and each year there a re umpteen attempts -w get b ack behind the myths" and ~t o explain" wh:u Ch ristmas is a bo ut. But Curiou.sly. e'"" among 1hose Chr istians who a re sc'"ral centuries distant from the Vulgate, this J>.'lrticul:u L:ttinism sun·h--es as a recognizable place-name, despite thl" ran that it nc,·c:r app<:trs on a ma1>or biblical sites in the area orJ erusalem. This is a~i mpk example orhm·· the community's memory i~ larger than our reading. r. Hence we can understand whr Rarmond E. Brown m:tde his great 11tudr, TM J)nttlt tif Ut" Ml!.t~iuh, 2 \'Ols (NI"\•· York: Douhll-d:ay. l994), as wdl '" Th.. Hi,.tiJ ll{Uti! Mrm'all .
  
  i
  
  182
  
  TJumuts O'Loughlin
  
  bcfore p roceed ing , it is wo r th n otin g that C!'\'C n for tho se Ch r istia n s wh o avid ly searc h for ~ori g i ns" a nd ··basic fa c1s," the re a re, cach year, a few d i.squicl ingsounds fro m th e m a rg in s. From o n e side. o ft e n in re p ly to t he- m essage p ut out h}' som e Christia ns that ·j esu s is the rt·•aso n fo r the season .'' someone po inu o ul th ~~ t t h is fCstival in December is a leg acy o f a ··pre-Ch l; s tia n " o r *p ag an'' o r ~non -Ch r i s ti a n " (each adjective is theolog ically lo ad ed) Ro m a n m id winte r fesliva l that was - h ijackcd u o r *ad a pted" o r .. Chr iste ned .. (each \'e r b is 1hcologically loaded) by the Ch u r ch } This obser vatio n p ro vokes a questio n by w::1y o f r eactio n : so we d o not kn o w whc n J <"sus was b o r n ? And we h ave to recog n ize tha t fo r ch ose who o pe rate \\•it h in t he h isto r ic;tl assu mptio ns \ \'C ha,·e jus t n oted, if th e re is a doub t about whe n s: II
  
  su~dh:
  
  l4 (1980-82) :J4- 51. St~ Robert E. \'an Voorst. }•"J ~.· 0111s.id.. 1/•~t Nn~ l hlmturtl: A,• l nlrutludiml t~J Ill~< :h •ri ..,f J.'v idn1cl'l (Grand Ra pid!>, l\11: Et-•rd mans. 2000). 6-16. A biblical scholar-. J>ror. &an Fr<.'vne oi'Trinit}' College, Dublin. \\'as aliked. on a Chrij.ttnas E\\" lunchtime radio news broadcast sometime in the 1980s. to comment on ,,·hcthc r we "rcaUy knew anything" about J~tu.: the iutcn ·iewer was d carlr looking for som<:thing stard ing that would gcnC"r:tle some control'e rs}' on what was othe nvi.st' a newli·Slan 'C'd dar. Prof. Frc}'ne told me mhsequr:ntly that he \ 'r':.lS j.fen tlrwa nted that whatt'\'l.':r he: !>:-tid aboutje-sus. he was to s.ar nothing that could be taken as a denial of tlle nistenc:e of S:mta Claus! U turgirn
  
  183 In fact, the proclam;tlion is o ften subn~rtcd by t hese notion.s a n d pressed lo collu de '''ith th e m. Ho w oftC"n a rc clergy to ld a ro und Christmas time by their p a rishio ners: "We ll, it's really fo r the c h ildren. isn't it?" Ind eed . in many Catholic communities in Britain th e liturb'1' o n C hristmas mo rning can become. in C"ffecl. a ··C hildren's Muss," like a MSchool Mass" for the younger c hildre n. I haw even .seen :01 communilr w h ere a school·organ izcd nat i,·ity play replaced Ih e g ospel rc;tding . the homily. and the profession o rfaith . The n the cele bration can becom e about toys that came with 1he d awn, rathe r than a bo UI 1he One who visits us like the da\\'"11 fro m on high. But sh ould w e see the problem:ot of cdcbrating t hC" maivit)'· a nd recalling o ur stories about t he n ativity, as pro b le ms in the quest for lhc historical .Jesus? Pe rhaps we have becom e so fixa ted o n the g ospels a.s - h istory" tiHlt we h :wc forgouen thai. like o ur a n cie n t texts. our cele bratio n really belongs to the liH.trf:,'")·?
  
  What Do We Remember Liturgically? For Christ ia ns. liturgical remember ing h :l."> th e fuller sen.sc of rm mmli'SiJ: celcbra•i ng a his10rical reality that is con stitutive of our .. no w,. as the church. Hence, b efore we can re fl ect o n how we re me mber the nativity. we must look at what we re m e m ber liturgic:•lly. Thi.s m e mory. as a g lance at :my .. relig ious" Christmas card .s how~. is far more co mplex tha n a ~s i mple" recollection of -facts." I place these l;uter word.s in quotation m a rks because even the briefest introduction to p sycholog)' .shows that me mory is r a rely simple: and that -races" in our past are as elus ive as subatomic particles. Ne n :rthd ess. we as huma n s h il\'C a very .stro n g a ttachment to t he notio n thal all m emoq• can be unders!Ood b)' a n alogy to the re port to the police o ffice r after a robb er)': ~T he ,·an o utside the house thi.s mo rn ing was white." In the C hristian memory o f J esus· birth. fo ur m
  The Date ofJesus' Birth For us. the me mm·y pro b ably begin s with a d ate: Decembe r 25. On t h i.s day J esu.s w:..s born. il is the feast of his birthday. and t hat is why-we arc to ld by countless preach e rs- Chr istians celebr ate. The preacher's jing le pro claims: ~Jesus is the reason fo r the season." Thi.s is no! simply a .single date wilhin the liturb'")'-b)' coni rast wit h the date of death of a .sain t (e.g.. 1h :ll of S1 Laure nce o n August 10), whe re the feast day is ofte n a m ost reliable wfact." Rat he r, t h i.s
  
  184
  
  TJumuts O'Loughlin
  
  birlh date links wilh a str ing of ol hc r fCasts. In th c- c urre nt Rom;Ul calendar the re arc t'\'d\'e ol h e r fcasL<; whose ccleb mtion is linked to this day- and the re were C \ 'C il more in the past in som e c h u rches. T h e r e arc seve n feasts lh:ttcan be seen as d irect *implicatio ns" of celebrating the Nalivity o fJ<:sus on Dece mbe r 2:;. Initially. 1h is d ate gi,•cs u s .June 24 (I he Nal i\'ity ofJ o hn the Baptist. six m o n t hs earlier). and it :dso implies March 25 (the Annuncialio n . nine m o nths befo re Jesus' N:ui\'ity).' 0 which leads lo ~hy 3 1 ( Ma ry 's Visitatio n o f Eli1.abc 1h). As fun h e r con seque n ces of Decem ber 25, we h ;wc Decembe r 28 ( Holy Innoce nts), J anua ry I (Circum cision). J anuat1' 6 ( Epiphany), and Fc b ruaq• 2 (the Presen tatio n in the Temple). as well as t h<": new Feast of 1he Baptism o f t he Lo rd (th e Sunday a fte r Epiphany. regulated by th e C hristmas cycle). In addit ion, fOu r more d ales. o b served in Catholic devotio n. ha\·e a risen indireclly fro m d etails o f I he nat ivity story: July 26 (Joachim and Anne. Mary•s parents). Septcmb<"r 8 (the Katil'ity of Mary). No\·e m bcr 2 1 ( he r l'resenL:uion in t he Tempi<", as a girl). a n d Decem ber 8 ( h e r C onception).11 \\thile fe w may be accivcly awan~ of 1h is \\·e b o f inte rrelated dates on C hristm as Day. it does d e m o n sl mle how t h<" p rima r y d ate h a.s embed ded itsdf in o u r m e mory. a n d rc \'c als two significant aspects o f liturgica l remem ber ing. First. there is a fO ndncs..o; fO r "h istoricizing.. and d isco\•cring or ex tracting from establish ed - fa cts.. as many "ne w .. deutils as p ossiblc.11 T hro ugh I h is process. each genc1·ation takes o n:r all il h:u inherited . adds more d etails that .seC"m partic u larly rele\'an t to it. and t he n seeks to g i"<" them a factua l ca le n d ;u toea· Lion. Such a dal<" the n becomes tile ··icon" for the fact: so the feast of Decem ber 8 gen e r ates the inte re.st lh:ll leads to the whole growth in C atholic theo logy we link with the idea of Mary's lmmacu lale Concep tion. a nd the feast day also comes lo sL"'tttd for all t hat iL<> n:l nH: imp lies. In recent years we h ave a secular para llel to how a date bccom e.s iconic for all th:tl is linked with it. in t he w;ty we recall the 1\\'0 p lanes being cra...,hcd into the T'\'in To\\'ers in New York o n Sep te mbe r I I. 200 1. We .sec that this has becom e :om iconic date in general •• Whether M~uc h 2~ is historicalh•derived rrom Decc<mbcr 25, or ,·ice ''C"rsa. h;_u b<.'t.n a source of debate sincc< the n inetCc:nlh u ntury. Here I a m not concc:r-ned wilh liturg ical hi.storr but ,,·ith 1he perception or the feast: in our usc of the cakndar today \ \'C cckbrnte March 2S with rdCrencc to Dccc<mhcr 25. such that if a ny actual community ,\·ere asked on Ma rch 25 whr they were celebrating the a nnunciation on that date. they \\'Ould an~ wcr that a n Kle:d gest~Hi on is nine months. and it is now niur- months before Chr i.stnms. The more re nowned Fea~t or the Nath·Hr places the Annunciation in its orbi1 in the minds of most of us. u T1le war these feasts relate to one another through a llmn of ~c:xegetical arithmetic" has lx'1'tt exam in<:d in ·rhom:ts O'l.onghlin. "The cult of i\bry \\'ithiu the structures of huma n time:
  tt On Ll1is procc<.s.~ . St"e Bruce M. Metz.ger. -Names for the Namdc~ in the :-;e,,· l'cstamenl: :\ Studr in the Growth of Christian Tr.ldition:· in "-:rrittA•m: Fnl.\r/lo·ijljolumm:~ (l•uulo'JI, cd. P'.ltr ick Granfil'ld and Josef A. Jungmann: 2 \'Ols (MUnster: A.schcndorrr. )970j, 1.79-99.
  
  185
  
  conscio u sn ess in the way we r efe r to it a.o; ··9/ 11" and '''e u.o;c the term ··post 9/ 1J."" Seco n d . liturg ica l m e m o q • h as the propc n sit}' to lin k a n d co mbin e d etails f ro m ve ry d iffe re nt sources into a dcnl>C we b and the n p resen t the m as a single. a p pan:n tly cohe r e nt, im age. Thus it is filling to have a feast o f.Jo ac h im a nd Ann e bt;ca u.sc we h :wc feast s o f Mar y and t hese feasL.; (suc h as t he p o st-b ib lical notio n of h e r Presen tatio n in the Te mple)1' fit toge the r as relating to :t s ingle p e rson. and t h at person is lin ked into t he nacivity sto r y b r be ing a central acto r wilhin it. We e m imagine th is by a nalogy wit h a co llection o f snap.o;ho t.s 1h ;tl have th e cohe re nce Lhat the)' come in the seq ue nce o f b eing ta ke n . a nd collectively h
  The Place of Jesus' Birth Once we han• :t d
  " 11le \'t'ry- fact that Uritish people rc:fr-r to the" date (pronounced -uinc-d e,-cn..) u.sing Lhe modern American con,·culion of putting t he mo nth'$ numbe r fi n ! shows that t he d ate i ~ not ju$1 a hi5toricd rererence marke r but a n iconic calenda r poiIll. 11 T1l i$ tmdition ~• lre-.a dy app<:us in the m i d-sccoud~cc nturr text. the /'rt,tt~n«rotn-¥mgrlim" is often li$C:d. I will keep the lOnger 5pclling. On the place of M:ary•s Preuutation in the Temple in the caiC'n dar. see Thomas O' Loughlin. ~ Th e PoYNtK~ttmg~'lillm oj j mwr.• and the l.~t urgical Memory- of the Roman Rit<': .a Ca~c St udr of the Marian Feast$.~ Mt•ria, fo rthcoming.
  
  186
  
  TJumuts O'Loughlin
  
  liturgical m emory-a lthoug h it is not t he most popular dement lOday- i n 1he liturgical usc of Ma uhc''''s gcnca log)'·'~ and the derived im;\gery of the .Jcs.o;c Trcc.16 One fu r the r link with Bethle hem is the slaughter or the innocenlS (Mau 2 :17-18). where the text $CC tns to as..o;umc I hal the fami ly have been li,·ing there for :u least two years. This d ark episode p lays a complex role in Matthe \,·: it links J esus co }'Ct a nother p rophecy. it pro mpLo; the move 10 Egypt lhat fu lfi ls another. a nd its legacy rcsuhs in the lllO\'c to settle in ~~u~arcth . Although it has an annual liturgical rccolleclion, it is somewhat *.siddincd" wit h in Christmas sto ry, and certa in ly it is invisible in most crib (or c rCchc) sccncs.11 A quic k glance ~al 1he two infancy n arnllives suggests that the b irth o f J esus in Be th lehem is a histol; cal -fact." as it is w itnessed i n two d ist inct t raditionsinvoking th e assump1 ion I hat a .. fact" has gath ered two d ifJCrenl e nc rusunio ns of a dded d etail -a nd it is remarka b le how m a n y comm c n t.;ttors o p t for t h is si mple solution . •~< H owever. o n ce we begin comp a ring the accou nts we note that the i r common element is tha t ther want to conn ect J esus tif Nllztlt"'!tlr with the rO}'a l Da\·idic Messiah. w ithin the overall strategy o f e arl}' preach i ng (like Ro m 1:3) tha t sought to u n derstand J esus thro u gh the memory of Israel's h istory- hence the li nk w ith the c ity of David 's b i rth. 1\cthl<:hem. H e re (i n my view) is the theological inmgi nat ion at work in the latter half of the first ccnllaq • a n d it is :t precious i nsight i nto carl}' Christology, p recisely bec ause it is a work of t.hc chu rches' im agi natjon. Yet it is evid ent that this ch r islological strategy \\'aS not un ifo n n . since differences remain in t he t:\'angclisls' p rcac:h· ing: Luke ha.s the paren t...; living in 1\a;-.;,relh a n d v-isiti ng Be thlehem. whe re as Matthew has the m living in B-ethlehem and moving to Na;-:arc:th. Nor is the •> 11lis te-xt (l\l:all 1:1-17) b• included twice in the- currelll Roman Catholic Eucharistic lee· tion;.ry: first. on December 17. \\'hrn 1:1-li is the gospel reading: and, stcond. ~u the first pa n ofthe g~pd for the Vigil Mass of Christmas (Decembe-r 2•i). Howr\·er, the compiltn of th(' lecti-onarr clearlr saw that it ,,.ilen d id no1 fore!'ec 1hat this Vigil Mass would within a lew yean~ turn into a major ct"lebration in many communities wht"n it bee:a me in the late 1970s an ·anticipation" of the obligation for Christm:ll' Dar. With this deve-lopment, the c:hoice ofg0'5pd passage became-e \·eumore noblematic because congregations often wanted a ~short· celebration and a l.so wished to 1car the Christm3s story. l'he result is that t he~ are \'Cry fe\,. cons.rc:g:ttion.s that C\'Ct he-ar lht" genealogy text. O n these p:utoml proble-ms. sec Thomas 0 Loughlin, l.it•tf~.tinll R.rM>•wt.\for A til"'"' m1d Cllmtmoulid•{ Dublin: Columba. 2006). (74-86. The Lukan gc-ncal· ogy (3:2~ -38) docs not appear in the Roman Catholic 1ec:t ioua'1'· except as an :tltcrnati\-e gospel for.Januar y 6 if the Feast of the Epiphany is c:elebrated on 1he rollo\\·ing Sunday. •• On 1he deri\<Jiion of the-J rSSC" Tree from Isaiah ll, sec John F.A. S:aw\'er. TJu• 11_))11 Gn•Jid: ls.t:riaJ: •'rt lltt HiJllJ')' "'{ Chri..tinm'ly (Cambridge. UK: Cambridge University l'ress. 1996).
  
  l
  
  74-SO.
  
  If
  
  I!.
  
  Sec O'toughlin. /.itm-gim/1\nmHu~JnrAdt..wl t.md Clwbllffrl.rlitfl'., I !)6- 67. According to R.D. Cole-, ~Bet hl eh e-m ." in f.'udmrm.~· Ditti<JJurr_v f>j tht WIJI<', ed. J)a\'id Noel Freedman (Grand Rapids. ~II: Ecrdmam. 2000), 1 72-7~). ]esus \\'as born in Bechlc-hc-m ca. 6 U.C.E.'' T1le c:ar~ oH:r the d:lle. and its form, g i\l'$ the- impression th:tl here is a cart"· ful $Cholarly judJ,'1ncnl of 1he historicd questions i n\'oln:d.
  
  187 christo logical strategy un ive rsal. in that Mark d id not preach it a n d its ex istence is dou btru J in places where John p reach cd.1'J However. severing a h istorical lin k '''ith l~ethlchem-a nd openlr recognizing th at such a lin k belongs to the world of thcologictl im agination- is a step I h attnany scholars fi nd difficult and most preach er:<> {if 1hey have recogn ized 1he problems po.o;cd by the stories) are unwilling to address. u,o;ually o n lhe un-e,•idenccd g round th:u .. it wou ld d isturb simple fa it h."' We can .see the..o;c dirficuhie.s in a d e velopme nt..'\ I sequence o ver a period of" dc.-cad e in the multil-olumc series A Mmgiuai.J~w by John P. Meier. In ,·olu me I ( 1991) he concludes. after a thorough state m e m o r the c \'idencc.'11> that.Jesu.s was horn ·perhaps in Bethle he m o f.Jud ca b ut more likely in Nnareth of Galilee." In Yolumc 2 (199 4) the probabilitie..o; arc d escribed in
  .. John 7:4 1-42 knows l he Mc-.ui:th-lk thlehcm link. but .shows no a\,·:trt"ness of t he-JesusBethlehem link. S Me-ier-..-\ Mrugit~ai.Jn••. l.2 1 1 -29. The quotation i$from 1.2'19 !! ibid .. 2 . 1 0:~9. !t Ibid .. 3.6 1.:.. ::1.616. ~ Thi.s form of au ad on Christianitr cau be t raced back to the \,-ort; of Porphyr~- in t he third ce":ntury. :and nmc.h of t he- "·or'k br Chr-i$lians at gospel h:trmonit.ation (such :ts that of Euscbius) can be sc-t:"n largely as a react ion to such :attacks.
  
  ISS
  
  TJumuts O'Loughlin
  
  to the ca\'c). we cncoun tcr a nother lcvd of theological e vohllion. The ca\'eo u t.sidc-t hc-lown-oi:.Bcthlc h c m imager}' is f-irst evide n ced in t he secon d ccnLury. The cave i.s. fO r ex ample. m entioned in section 78 of Justin Man r r's Di(l/ogrur with Trypho.1 ·1 h ut the- wh ole scen e <1ppears fo r the ll~t time in the PmtOt!i!tmgttlimn of}miii'S.2>The latlc r text. wh ich effectively canonizes C h r istia n m e m o ry of the n ativity from both cast and west u ntil mod ern times."" is iL.;elf a remark:•h lc example of h ow remembe ring. theo logy. a nd history a rc always in a d yn ;unic inte rplay. II was written to g ive furthe r ~ hist or i cal'' d etail to communities all too d esirou s of such info nnatio n-it is fro m this sou rce th:n we get su ch stor ies as that of Joachim a nd Anne a lo ng with that o f Mary's Prcs('nt:uio n in Lhe Temple-but it also atls'''ercd th ree important thco1ogi· cal needs. Firsl. it is the earliest consc:iou.s attem p t to reconci le the con fl icti ng infanq nar rali\'es of MaLL h ew a nd Luke. Second . it d c,·clo ps the 1he m e of the u nique ness o f J C"sus by slrC"ssing n ot o n I)' h is ,·irgin:d conception b ut also the u nique ness of Lhe conception. birth. and u pbringin g o f Mary-it is with this text we .sec th(' g rowth o r links between I h e n ativit)' Sto r r a n d the chu rc h es• m e m o ry o r M:tr}'· And . third. it dC"monstr.ttes 1he need to e xplain awa y 1he historical memory of the bro thers a n d siste rs ofJcsu s so that Ma r y can be seen as n~rv i rg i n -a n d it is as part of this agend a th at the b irt.h has to be located o utside the city of Beth leh e m. <md a ca\·c seem ed a n a ppro priate coverin g in such a d eser t sctl ing. In sh arp cont rast to the reticence shown by m odern sch o lars and p reac hers tO\\"'.trd a bandoning t he .. historical" b it..; of the inranq n a r ratives or M:uthcw and Lu ke , th e .. h istor ical" b its in the in fa nq narrative of the P.rotnt:~Jongrli:mn h ave been j c n isoned with aplomb in mod ern times! T h e g los.o;ing O\'er o r at least 1.850 years of o u r liw rgical rem embe ring is often j ustifi ed by simptr giv· ing the stories the p <;joratin : lab el of ~a p ocryph al." with the u n spoke n b ut h or· rend ous implication th at if the slories a p pear ed wit h in the ca non ical ,,·orks . the n they would be ~t r ue'" ! Yet. ;tt least for Roman Catholics, o u r memor)' will n ot be d ism is.o;cd so sim· ply as m ight be '''ished by those wh o wo u ld like to reduce it to t h e: canon i· cal (an d imp liciUy much less p roblematic) ..gen u ine" texts. W hile in the case of MaLt hew and Luke we arc often so C
  !f.
  
  1110m:..s P. Halton a nd Mic:had S1us~r. eds. St .f•utin Mm·l_lr: J)ialo;:•u '"itl1 Tr;·piu, (Washington. DC: Catholic Uniw:rsitr or America Press. 2003). 121. Sec my :.ulid c, lhc: Prot,..•.'l(ln§ liM• tifJmru s and the Uturgkal Memorr or lhe Roman Rite" (rorthcoming in ,\f~:~riu) . For a tr:mslation of this ~cond·C('Ut urv text. see 0$C:tr Culhmuut. '·Infancy Gospel$... in Nt'tl• Tr:.rtm~''-''t .-\fl'Or'J'fJ/UJ, « 1. Wilhdnl Schnecmdcher. second cdn. 2 mls (l.oui$ville: Westminster/J ohn Knox. 1991-1992). 1.426- 37. See 11lom:t.S O'Loughlin, ,\dommin mu/11" llf>l.r Piaa:J: Th,. l>t-tu f'tion.1 of m1 hr.n•lar Mrmk ont/J,. l~r••tum oft"" B ib/kat IJrruntt ( London: T&T Clark. 2007). 229-:~2 . The c:an• orJ esu.~· l>$rth appears as rccrnt1r a.~ 2007 in the: film TM Nativity Slory. directed by Catherine Hardb·ickt'.
  
  189 the ProttJtrllltllgtlimn we h an: almost the reverse situation : its '' h i storic~ ! " b its a rc being g radually fo rg o ltc n ;n b ut the th cologlc
  The Manger The core im;\ge of the nati,·itr in p opu lar memor}' is that o f .Joseph and Mary with a n inf:ult lying in a lillie cot of .stmw. Representing t he Greek te rm piUJtni ( Lu ke 2:7. 12. 16). the "manger" h as a quasi sacr:•l status, presumably as it i.s fi xed in the m e m o ry by such carols as "Away in a m a ngct·." But m a n y p eople tod ar. when asked what i.s a ~mange r." o n lr know that it was whe re the infant J C':'su.s was laid: a manger is a feeding trough fO r liwstock. If the d ate a n d the locale are b o th n o n-historica l. then. at least.. tllis m ust be h istorical, because J esus was born and ill his birth the p a ren ts wou ld ha\'C looked o n \v-ith j oy, admi ration, a n d, indeed. relief. Sure!}' this is a scene that is co mmon to a ll h uman births, if the m o the r and father un both be present at the time of the binh . T h e re are. howe ve r, several reasons why we sh ould be careful. First. that which is commo n to a ll human ity canno t be \'iewcd as f:•lling within human h istory. in so far as recorded h istory re m e m bers that wh ich is conti ngent and di.st in ct.i,•e wit hin .situations. That human beings c ry is a fact of b io log)' a nd 4
  
  4
  
  r. When I went fi rst went to school in the earlr-J960s in Dublin (an d it was 11ota sc.hool ru n hr the l'resentalion Sisters). I saw a sequence 'or pichtrc:s along the corr-idor h'ith .scenes fronl
  
  the life ofJc:sus as preSt~nted in the gospel$ (e.g.. a picture ofJesus met'Ling the centurion). hut I his scquencc also included sc:tUt"$ from the life of h is mother. Therefore:. there was a picture of the Prt•sent:ttiou of Mary in thr Temple. I h:l\'t" no recollection of \•·hen the scc:ne was ~expl ai ned" to me-it was just part of mr absorbed iconographical memory. a nd so I ne\'t"r thought about il "·hen I later saw similar pictures in the ]):trlors of manr l'res.cntation Com-c:nts. H<Mrver, when I .sho\··cd that image recenttr to :t class of Catholic seminarians. not one: of them could identil'r it-the best :turmpt was ~some scene from the Old Testament.'" My point i$ this: these c:>:tn-mtonNmgr.U"m an:, howc,'t'r. ~till part of the memory of e;Lstern Christians. since thcr :trc depicted in common I}' found icons.
  
  190
  
  TJumuts O'Loughlin
  
  psychology. nllh cr than <'I fact o r hi.story.111 Second , we h an: no d ist incli\'C detail about th e birth (e.g.. the manger) that is not ( in my \'icw) d e rived f ro m th e lhcologic;tl im agin ation t h at led to the stor y of.Jesus bein g born in lkthlchcm. An d . third. we ten d 10 embellish LIHll core scene to make links between the his· lorical fac t o f J esus ' birth a n d o ur f:lit h in h im as the S;w io r. The most obvious cx:Hnple of 1his process is the presence of t he o x and the ass that dcrh·es from the d esire to make :t lin k with a nothe r p roph ecy: - T he o x knows it..; owne r. a nd the ass iLo; rnastc r '.s crib : h u l Israel d oe.s not know. nl)' peop le docs n o t u n d erstand "' ( lsa 1:3). Less o bvious is the auitud e o f the parents that tmditio n al C h ristian a rt has usu ally prC"scnted as one' of worship r:nhC"r 1h ;m h uma n j oy o ver a b ir th. Indeed. the oth c m ess of this birth is o n c n fu rthe r dcvdopc::d in imabres th ro ug h the- use o f haloes or a n imbus of light around the infant. T lte core image is 1hat of the b inh of a h uman b ein g. b ut the details of the mcmor)' point to it being a birth like no othe r.
  
  T he Combination of Nativity Stories from Matthew and Luke The fou rth cleme n t in our liturgical memory is th ai o f the visitors who come Lo worsh ip the newborn, and here the liturgical memory combines the sto r ies from Matthew a nd Lu ke into a sin gle coh erent n arrati\'e a n d ignores the dish a rmonics. WC" ha\'e the shepherds fro m Luke- it is pe rfectly rC"asonablc th a t the re we re sh epherd .; in that region g iven the im portance of shc('p herding in pre-mod ern agriculture. We also ha\'e the ast ro logers from Matthew. :l rathe r less convincing set of visitors. wh o can gain access to Kin g Herod without furthe r ado and whose specu lations lead to the king giving the entire academic h ierarch}' a special rcsC"arch project to ascert<1in the correct p lace for a Mcssi~1h Lo be b orn. But the important p oin t to notice is 1h al the memory adds in other clements that cannot be contained wit hin a historical narrative. In Luke we h a\'e the angds both singing the praises of the infanL and com municati ng wilh th(' she p herd.;, while in Matthew we have the notion lhat Lhc cosmos is ann ouncing th is unique b irth th rou gh the ~s t ar."' T h e e xuberant r ic hncs.o; o f Malf.h('w's story (with such details as th(' list of 1he three gifts) h as meant !h at il has been used a llegoric::lll}' since the beginning to enrich o ur C hristoiOb")'· T h is is a use that is wholly a pp.-opriate. as this was the origin al r.•tionafe for m e ntioning -gold . fran kinccn.o;(', and lll}Trh " (Matt 2 :1 1): the gold and incense came fmm a mcs.-:ianic read ing of lsa 60:6. while I he m yrrh p o inted to the d i,,ine t hro n e and royal sccpl<:'r o r Ps 45:6-8. This
  
  lt:
  
  Howcn':r. that J c.sus h'Cpt at the 1omb of t~u:an1s i.~ presented M a fact of nhi!ltor-( accord· ingto.fohn II ::J5.
  
  191
  
  sto r y was furLhcr de\'elopcd within the subsequ e nt liturg ical memor}' in Lh:n the magi han~· mut:ucd into the kings of Ps 72:10 - J I. and the ir number h~ls been fixed at Lhrcc: the three gifts fiLLed with !here being three k ings derived f ro m the Psalm. This regal g roup has lefl its m a rk o n western culture in many wars. In some count r ies 1he Feast of 1h e Epip hany is known as that of 1h e three kings ( Di~ F~ier du 1-/eiligtm drr.i Kiiuigt') and in mhcrs as (_the feast of) ··t h e kings" (Ltl.f Rtry~s) . T h ey have been give n names within the tradition (Caspar. Melchior. B:otlth:tsar), a n d I hey .still leave their mark on countless d oon"ays in central Europc.!t!l English Bible translations (from KJV as fa r as :-.l"RSV) have sought to lransfon n t hem ret again : they cannot here m aintain their royal status. ret the te rm magoi ("magi"') is not ren dered as ~a.st rologers" but as t.h~ far more reasonable "wise men."j" T h is sun·ey of Ihe conte nl o f' o ur· liturgical n1cmory should have made one point dear: we arc not engaging with historical d ctajJs whe n we rt:call litu rgi· Cllly the birth of the C h rist. Our memory h as wmppcd the birth within a web of h istorical-style garme nts, in a continuo us dfon to capwre the uniqueness o f who we bel i e\~ the n ewbom inf;\nl to be. Howe\'c r. a grcalm
  Remembering Liturgically The f'und~lment:ll p remise of all litttrg)' is that we encounter the di\'ine reality thro ugh the med ium of reality that cxisLo; within o ur e xperie n ce of tim e a nd sp ace. Without this as.o;umption . the Eucharist. f'o r example. wou ld b~ eithe r a pageant 1h at serves to jog the lllC"IllOf)' o r else the ritual whc re b)' we manipulate lhe di\'ine from within the world around u s. With ch is assumption. ltowever·. we can e ng age in a communitr m eal ! h at n ot onlr d efines us socially. b ut can unite us '""ith the o riginal actions of.J~sus and a lso anticip ate the hea\'Cnly banquet. In o ur e \'eryd ar expe rie n ce we arc c:onslan Ur being separated fro m one another by sp ace and lime. b ut in liturgy that process is reversed: he re is a
  
  ~
  
  ln many r ural localitit'$ in central Europe the practice sun·i,·e$ or \\'riling this legt.nd on the door lintc:l (or the door itself} on .Januar)' 6 <'fXI (i.e .. the year•$ date a nd the initials of Ihe three kings) . .w 11te rt~ndering can IX' found :u earlr ;u the sixteenth cenhlr}' (e.g.. thc Rheims tr:mda· tion of 1!182}. In l.atiu the Greek import "mg1t.1 \\'as convc:ntionalty understood. foJio;,·ing Augustine's cxegt.sis. :ts identical with nudlmMiin t.r (i.e.. :ut a;o~trologcr) .
  
  192
  
  TJumuts O'Loughlin
  
  m o m~nt in a partic u lar pl ac~ th:ll has pn~sent to it the C\-er-prcscn c now o f the Incarnation a n d t h a i is also a momclll within the gathe r ing of the a ng els a nd .sain ts around the hcan:n l}' t hrone.-'1 Such is the Lime-space formu la in the Catholic liturgy at the con clusion of t:\'crr Eucharistic Preface. whic h sets the scen e fO r 1he singing o f the Sanctu.s. T h is liturgic:tl re membering . e m b racin g p ast and fut ure in the acti,·it y of the pres.en t, is d r amatic in it.s structures b ut is more Ih a n a dramatjzation of a set o f ideas. It invilcs t Lo;, for insta nce ;tl the Feast of 1he Epipha n y. to enter in to lllc :tcti\'ity of the mag i. rather than simply to d ecod e Ihe story as in d icating a bd icfin the C h ristian claim th:'ll this revelation is universal in scope. A drama· tizatio n mig ht be no more tha n a co mmunicaLion d e vice fo r a syste m of int<·l· lcctual propositions. b ut a liturgical dranm e nables us t.o join in the fu lfilhncnt of the scriptural tex t thal all k inbr:s fa ll down b efo r e t he Lo rd . and a ll muio ns serve h im ( l's 72:1 1). Our m e mo ry- and the cv;mgdisL's inte n tion- is not that we <1dmin : a n ancie nt event. bultake p<~ rt in it ours.ch·cs. O cc~1d es after this und erstanding of liturgy \ V".lS p ut forward by th e gre;u l iturgisL~ o f the twe n tieth ce ntury (su ch as Odo C:tsel). we are now begin· n ing to sec how it ca n affect many aspects o f Christ ian activity. It is frequ e ntly invoked in ho w we present in d i, •idual sacra m c llla l e ve nLo; su ch as l!.;tp tism a n d the Eucharist . <m d we arc also beginnin g t.o sec- how this understanding is 1he key to even ts su c h as the Creal Week (Holy Week). th e Paschal Triduum. or the Easte r Vig il. By war of com rast. the narrative o f the Nati, •it}' .sn:ms mor~:: a talc of e\·ents than a mome n t o r epi:o:od c with in t he ChrisL·C\'Cill. a nd so we do not ofte n think of it in this liturg ica l \ V".L)' · But the c h u rch's keep ing o f the m e m o r y of the Nalivit.r i:o: a l iLurgic<~ l e ve nt t hro ug h a nd thro ug h-a nd we English-speakers a rc even reminded of1his linguisticall)' in th:tt we call it ~c h rist- Mass"(= Christmas). Our annual liturgical cclebr:ttion o f Ch ristmas is no t s imply an a nnin: rs~ny of an eve nt, b u t it is t.hc celebration of t he C \'C ilt ,,,.ithin a n annual cycle of lit· u rg)'· Most of our comme m orations belong to t he annive rsary type o f cclcbra· Lions: for in stance . France remembe rs the: iconic eve n t of the- 1789 Rc,·olulion o n Bastille Day (Jul)' l·t). b ut this is not t:mt~Hnount to saying that lOd ay's
  
  31
  
  \\'e cannot u nderstand whr lilUrgr is important to u.s if \•"C ~c:t.·k to explain iu content using a merely hi~torkal mudd or expla nation. In fact. at the: Sundar Eucha rist we celebrate the dar of rnurrectiou. .and .arc .s.-..rramentaUr :u present to Ihe r isen Onl" as those who e ncountcrt:d him o n the first Easter Sundav. }
  193 Parisians arc also as.o;auhing th:'lt lo ng-disappev.tred fortress. Only o ur liturcelebratio n s b elong to the o ther so rt, which we call antJJII Jiesi.s. In our Ch ristmas celebrat io ns we arc rejoicing \v-ith lhc good llC"WS of g rcaljoy as we celebrate like- the sh e phe rds. and we a re join ing the magi in ackno wled g ing Lhc Ch rist a.s the cen ter o f all life. Because we a rc po n d e ring in o ur h c~t rt.s a ll tJm t t he C hrist-c,'Cn l m ean s. the liturgy's g reat ant ip ho ns ;uc fra med in the tim e o f the prcscnl m o mcnl. Hence the e ntr a n ce a ntiphon for t he C hristmas Vigil Mass and the s ho r t responsor y at First Vesp e rs (dr.twing on Exod 16:6-7) bo th sL.'l lc: f/odie :rcieti:r quia tJtmit.'l IJtJmimts, t'/ maue vidt'biti.s. gi.(Jrinm. n'us (''Today you will k now thal th e ( .ord will come. and in l.hc m o rning }'O U will se~ his glory"). So too. the a ntip h on for the ltwit.aLOI}' Psalm on C h ristmas morning d cd;-u-cs: CltriJflu ualu.:r t!)'l nobi.s: wnite. adonwuu (~C hrist h as been b orn fOr us: come, let us ad o re: h im"). Whe n we seek to recall th e n;uiv-it}' within this lilurgical m o d e of und (·rsta nding, '''c need to ta ke our time frame fr01n the l i1ur~n· i•self: it is ;an event occurring "to c:la)•" (/rodie), in liturgica l tim e. Thus. it is an e ve n t that is unfO ld ing n ow. rather th a n in t he pasl.~! In pop u lar consciousnes..o;. ho wc \'e r. !he nati\-'ity is a wholly past e \'e nt: it occurs in Ih e myth ic o r roma n tic p ast o r ~whil e C hrisumtscs" long ago . or in a d islan t h istorical past as cx prc:<>scd in Ihe carol - Long time ago in Bethlehem." In deed, e \'C'! ll in forma l theological d iscourse il is often h a rd to d istin guish Ihe p resent tense pmpcr to our faith in 1he In carnation frotn the p ast tense inherctll in the no tion that we h ave sotcrcd 1cxts that tell of ancien t excn1s o f ongoing sig n i fic~lncc. Regarding this p resent tense perspeclivc with whic h we a re to a p proach a ll Ih al. is wit h in our m emory a b out the 1u tivity, it is worth look ing at the lhree Prefaces supplied in th e Ro m a n Mi:<>sa l for the feast. In 1hc first Preface o r Christmas (P3) lhe ~wonder o f t he incarnation " is b ro ught to th e belie vers• eyes and e ng ages t he m n ow in that the)' arc "caug h t u p in love of the God [theyl cannot sec." In the second Preface (1'4 ) the m e m o ry f-ills their h earlS ~tod a ( a nd the event ta kes p lace in the present: "now he is .seen as one like u s .. . now he is bo rn in tim e."' and h is work is o ngoing in fu lfi lling the n:nivity·s p urpose. In lhc third Preface ( I'!>) it is a lso "to day" that ~a n e w light has d awned ." while the effec:L of l.hc Incarnation. coming to s h a re in the di,•i1u : n
  ~
  
  While as a rule of thumb mosl Chr ilittnas hrnms or carols do not n and UJ>wdl to tlwo· logical critique. \ \'t" may no1c jus• how dosdy integrated into 1he nature or litm gicaJ r« ollec-lion i.s J ohn Fra ncis Wade:·~ dghteeuth-iphanr (P6).
  
  ro
  
  194
  
  TJumuts O'Loughlin
  
  Building a Sense of Liturgical Recollection To bring o u l some of the implicatio ns of the \vay \\'~ca n best \'icw the nativity within 1h e c hurc h . a n analogy 111ay help . An}· ancient o bject th at conveys to u.s a m e mo ry o f t he past can lk' viewed in two wap ;. LN u.s suppose tha i we han: on the one h a n d a n ancit•nt codex (lm nd,,•riu c n book) of the f:,•us pcls and o n Ihe a nother a p ainted icon . We m ight view the codex as ::1 kind of icon, an o~jecl that may pe rhap s cmUurc up for us all t he wo1·ric.s and connicts of !he time when it ' "as written (perhaps the fOurth o r fi ft h ct•ntury). and the n just mar\'el at it in re ve rie. However. our m o d e rn .scientific instinct is to approach it as a historical a rtifacl. and so t he skills o fva riotL<: c xpert..s-•he co d ico lo-gist, the pa leographe r. and th e textual c r itic- arc d eployed in uun. so that th e object can yield up to o ur u n derstand ing as muc h of its latclll infOrmal ion as po.ssi· ble. The aim is to kno w whe re and when it was produced. ir possib le by whom and '''h)'. its relationships with other manuscripts and with o ther gospel le xls. a nd t he n to sec how it can help liS tlndersland t he transmissio n of lite text. lllc social culture o f the c hu rch that commissio n ed it. a nd , perh aps. how iL m:'}' throw light on other theological texts or even help us improve the edition or the New Testamenl. Now con side r the p aimcd icon. We can stud r it with in the .sam e frame work as th e co d ex with all the s kills of th e art historian . a nd we can -decode"' it as a kind o r text by nOijng. fo r examp le. in a n icon o r the n ati,·ity how it.s imabrcry nta)' b e d erived from the PJ'ol-t~tlJtUtgrlium of.Jmm:s. Howe\'er. we can a lso relate to it. as a visual object. Viewing il as an icon. we may be: prescnLed with a whole r a nge o f images that co u ld nc\'er come together in h isLol'ical ti me. :Uld all a re located in a land scape th at is s imulta n cow;ly fam iliar a nd otherworld !)'· Indeed. t he icon does not claim to be h istory, but a celeb rAt ion of faith . Moreo\'c r. th e form of its imagel'}' docs not a llow us to think of it :.t..'i p ri· mari ly a soun:c o f h istorical infOrmation in the wa}' t hat a cod ex e n cou rages us to ,·icw it c h iefly as histo6 cal e\'ide n ce (after all. most historical resc~•rch i..'i based on the study o f o ld bo oks a nd documents). foiiO\''ing from t h is analog)'. our task i..'i lo \'icw the cdcbration ofChrisLnHlS p r imarily as an ico n to be con tem p lated rather than as a codex to be slUdicd . HowC\'er, we are hampered in t h is by two factors. Firsl. the obscs.o;ion wjth -I he bo ok"' as history withi n western Christia n ity in recent centuries means I h aL a ny e\•ent n;lrratcd in .. the book"' is d o omed to be vie wed as history first a nd foremost. a nd escaping from this ll'ap is ve r y difficult. For manr Ch r ist ians the onlr reason to cclcbnllc Ch r ist m:\s is becau se it is in .. the book." The ide-a that it was a community's cele brat ion of the event of the nativi1y !h al gave rise to the stories in -t he book,. is fa r too rc>;olutjonary a n otion fOr many people to gnup. But while we m:•y thin k of su c h C hris1ians who im:•ginc t h at Ch ristianity is a function o r .. the Bible" as ~1 d efined g roup. the attitud e is far m o re widely
  
  195 d iffu sed , and is a view th:H is fo ste red in countlc:<>s n :-ttivity p l:tys. cotrol services. a nd C h ristmas homilies. Second , ,,;estill h:wc n o t got ove r the allit ud e.o; that were a ppropriate in t hose centuries whe n Christianity was th e so le m ajor religio n in weste rn soci<"t}'Lhc time whe n (a pan from som e J c'"s :: md ::1 fe w o the rs) we could ta ke it for gnmted th at peo p le were C lu·istians in som e wa}' or othe r. In su ch a society the annual fest j,·iti('s co u ld serve 1h e aim of recalling people to .. ,,,h at it m eans to be a C h r istian." Toda)' muc h Chr istian communication is still b ased o n t hai assumption. ~md w a British cleric will go o n the BBC radio program ·Thoug ht for the Day" in b te Decembe r and re mind people ··what it is a ll about." But for most of the Brit ish aud ie n ce this is simplr th e sam e as someone go ing o n the radio o n October 21 a n d re minding p eople of t he deb t that Brita in o wes to 1-Jor.tlio Nelson fOr h is 1805 naval victory at Tr.tfalgar -a victory th~~t e xplains why a p rom inenl London square is mun cd afteT an Ibe r ian coastal fCa Lure. By co n tinuin g to sp eak to e \'e ryone in a liturgical languag<: that o n ly makes sense to those who are celeb ra ting t he liturgy, we o fte n beu·ay that lang u age and invite the who le celcbr.ttion to be vic,,·ed simpl)' a;c; a n a nniversary. In both cases, whe re o ur str.\Lcgies invite our liturgical dr.tmati;t.;Uions to be regarded as h is to rical record s. they are fOund \.,.4\tlting. and the very m essage preached is undermined .
  
  Liturgical Recollection and Historical Reconstruction T h e re is an impo rt;ull differe n ce b etween liturgical recollect ion and historical reco n structio n . L illlrgical reco llection is conce rned with what is broug ht t.o min d for bel ie vers wit h in t he co mmunity's memoq=. ~ 1 whereas historical stu dy a ims to find out wh;H ;tctu:\11)' h a ppe ned in the past. 1\•lorcover. liturgical m e mory uses stories fro m the past to lead in to ;:1 present e ncounte r of fait h. whereas h istorical research aim s lO d iscover from t he p ast m e rcl)' wha t can be asserLed wit h t.hc rc;tsom1ble ce rtit ud e of h istoric;tl evide nc e. ~ We could say t ha t li!Urgical me m o ry p r eserves the past in an inclusive w-ay,:i6 whereas histo r ical resc;lr c h excludes anything that d oes n o l mcel t he dcm:tnd s o f it.s m elhodology. Acco rd ingly, we ca n summ~uize the d iffe rences between
  
  11lis is more: than the notion of"what docs it mf'
  196
  
  TJumuts O'Loughlin
  
  ' 'ic wing Ch ristma.s as h istory (by :malo gr: the cod ex) a n d viewing it as litu rgi· cal reco llection (br analog)': ch e p ainted ico n) as gi\•cn in Table 12.1. Like a ll suc h sche m atic presentations. a nd particu larly binary contn1sL<>. t h is is an O\'Cn>i mpl i fic~l tio n . We ca nnot avoid engaging with hisL<>ry. In fact o ver recent centuries. h isto rical irwcstig:ttio n.s h ave grcnt ly e nric h ed o u r u n d e rstanding o CCh ri.stian origins. Like wise. t he pe rson cclcbr:\ting cannotj ust fli c k a switc h that changes h im o r her fro m ··historical reco n struction .. to ~ l itu rgi­ cal recollectio n" mode! Equ ally. we must be carefu l to a.o;sert that the birth, life. and dc;uh of Jesus to ok p lace within human h istory and tJlat o u r faith's
  T he d iflercn ces between \'iewing C hristums as histo ry and as litu rgical recollectio n
  
  Table 12.1
  
  Litu rgicaJ recollection
  
  Historica l rec:onst:ruedon
  
  ( I) Who ; .•Jesus, our Lord? (2) What a rc t he ramificalimu or that event? (3) What dOC$ it bri ng to mind for us \•·it hin our conununitr's memory?
  
  ( I) Who n•tujesus of Nat.arc:th? (2) \Vhat ha ppened in Palestine th en? (3) How d id it happen?
  
  Crit..rirm ofroidour:
  
  Those storie$ that have been round valuable within the community. a nd also preserved. arc asserted as they mar provide the basis for an im ight imo t he encounter of faith. T he critr-riou is pres<:rvntive of the past, an d as such i.s i nclusive.
  
  To fi nd \,·hat can be:' as~crted with t he certi· htde or historical t"\'idencc . and no more than this. T he: criterion fu nctions to exclude anything t hal docs no1 m«t iu strk t demands.
  
  !l s..-n•m]Jiitm IIIHJII( widom•:
  
  ll will not be consistent within a time·pl:au framework. since it sc:cb to speak about both the d i\'ine aud the e arthly.
  
  11t<: e\·idcuu must be consistent \•·ithin a coherent time--place framework.
  
  tl t..ntNJjJiitm 111H111t lhr diMYmrsl'.
  
  The m;miftit:ation or God can UC'\'t"r be: contajn.::d in human \•t>rd.s or images. since: God is ~d\•'J}':S greater tha n our undt'"ntanding.
  
  Contradic-tion$ ;ue a d uded.
  
  1imrJQrll.f ~>/llu <'lltf'tir:r.
  
  Today.
  
  T1te p:lSL
  
  tminvi mtlrm<Ju :
  
  Liturgical celebration leading to a sacramett· tal e ncounter with the Word made llesh.
  
  Information leading to a greater under· standing of the origin$ a nd structures of a major world rdigion.
  
  197 a ~d ra matizati o n .. o r as t he - dramatic ge nre" rat he r tha n " h islo r r." a nd whe n we actua lly e ng age in t hat r eco llectio n o f ourseln :·s we ca n call it lit ur~n'·
  
  Consequences for Ch ristian Practice Recognizing t he nature of what we are d o in g as the c hu rch '''he n we cdebr:ue tile n ativity imp! ics certain wa)'S of acting o utside the liturg)·. precise!)' b ecatiSC a m emory of Ollr cd e b r.tt io ns is no w pa rl of 1he wider huma n c ulture. He n ce I conclude this essay wi~ h five suggest ions for ho w we can reca p lure the m ysterr o f th e nat i\"it y in o ur annual Ch ristmas cele b ratio n s.
  
  1. "\\'interval" It is poin tless to try to prese nt the whole c u ltur al festival as h a ng ing on our Ch r istia n cele bration. It was an action of Chris tia ns t.o hoo k up their celebratio n o f the n ati\'itr to :tn ex isting pan y that a ns wered the huma n n eed in the northe rn te m pe rate zon e for a celebr ation dur ing Lhc dullest time in the ycar.3' Whe n p eople wam to call this party b }' oth er names, we can let t he m do so. If all we re C hristia n s. 1he re wo u ld be no n eed for s uc h a re n;uning, b ut since no t all arc Ch r istia n s. we should no t be tr ying Lo monopo li1.e lhis mid win ter p arty as if it is o ur proper ty. The who le world can h ave a p a rty. while we Ch r istiuns ha\'e a party and co m b ine it with o u r celebr ation of the n ati,rit}'-M Fighting to ~ kee p Ch 1; s t. in C hristnms" is based o n a n out.d atcd assumptio n (namely, confus io n be tween a n a nn ivcn;:uy and liturgical r ecollectio n ), a nd such a struggle is a waste of c n crb'l'· Our e n ergy is bc tte1· d irected to im prO\'ing t he understand ing a nd cele bration of the n a tivity with in t he community of th e People o f God who hold their celebr ations at the time o f th e midwinte r p::u-Ly-whel h e r that p a rt)' is called the /)it!s tl((l
  2. Yet another comet! Each rear. it seem s. som eone comes up wit h ye1 anothe r -solut ion'· 1<> so me pu;o..zlc in the infancy narr atives of Matthe w o r Luke. We han: 10 resist the te mptatio n to g rasp at these": str aws and re me mber t h at t h e '"hole n a r r ati\'ca llthc b its th ;."~ t make the m emory-will n c \"c r Hadd u p" log icallr. The refore. '' Here I paS! O\ "Ct" the: fan thai the .solstio::s an d cquinox<'"s a rc: r itualty signifecant times within ma nr religi ons ~ sucll spl"cul.alions \\tmld be a d istraction here. ~ Around the same time: of the rear the l<:ws cclchr.ue the: Fl":tst or Hanukkah to conunc:nm· rate 1he Mac.cabcan rt"dcdk:ation or the .feru.s."'l.lcm tc:mplc: (1 Mace 4:39).
  
  198
  
  TJumuts O'Loughlin
  
  imagin ing tiHll we have a so iULio n 10 .som e b i1 of t he me mo ry is to forget what the m e mo ry is (namely. our earliest liturgical rccollec:l ion) and to confuse it with a h istorica l acco unt. l'o.siti\·el}'. this m eans that we do we ll to avoid anr hint in o ur preaching th:'ll m ighl give t he impression th ;tt '"h at we a rc reading is a colle n ion of contcm· por<'lry eyewitness e viden ce. Sin ce we cqjo}' the fo rm o f h istoq' writing with ilS sem b lance of realism. a nd we like 1he focus given by the rhetorical d c\'icc: of h istorical exactitud e (e.g., ··With th is \'cry pe n X sign ed 1h e Declaration ofY..), we must be car efu l lest o u r h isto rical d esires. com e between us and o ur cele b r.t· Lio n of th e n atiYity as a ~cramcnta l eve n t lodar.
  
  3. Books and m em ory A furth e r conseque nce o f no t treating 1he recollect ion as if it were a h is torical account (o r m crclr an anni\'ersar y) is that we wo u ld do well to a\'oid 1he fund
  
  4. Avoiding confusion Anothe r co nsequence of not behaving as if the details of o u r recollectio n of the nativit)' arc h isto ry is that those who have p astoral respo nsib ilit ies will a m id giving confusing ans,,•ers to questio ns o n the spu riou s g ro und s that telling people" t h at (fo r inst;mcc) 1h e fl igh t in to Egypt is no t ;, h istorical event will dis· Lurb their .. fa ith ... [quail)'· saying that it is .. po ss ibly true,. is 1.0 b e a \'oid cd: su ch -possib ilities" defy the nornml rule.s o f h istor ical evidence- the \'cry rule.s we appeal to in o rder to d ismiss som e of t he "'ildcr claim s t hat a rc made forJesus~
  
  "' The l9S I &,..ml JllJtr•trtioJ• tm t/1, t-P~Hmrtry for the Roman Missal e xpre.s.s.t_'tl t hi~ in lhesc word.s: "Thai word const.anl lr proclaimed in tht" liturgy is always a li\'ing. acti\'e ;,·ord (st'e Heb 4:2) th rough the ))0\,·er of the Holy S))iril. It exprcsst's the F:at her·~ lm'C. lhat never fails i n its c.lfecl i\'encss lO\•·ard U$" (n. 4). I++ In t..he race of ,,·idtspread misunderstaltdiug oft he nature of Chrlsti:mity (including mis· understandings of Ch ristianity by m:anr fund:amenlalist Ch rist ia n~) .,,.<" rec:all that lhere was a churcl~ before Iher<" were m:mr of the $torics tllal C\'t'ntuall~· ended up in the ~ocu· menu t hai (later still) came to be regarded as ~tllc lNew 1btamenl) Scripl urcli. The li,·ing Word can ne\'cr he identified wit h the legible marks IOund on :tn inert obj ect.
  
  199 hidde n years. su ch as t he: sugg~sLion s th at he visited Ind ia o r J a p a n! Anything can ( in princ ip le) be d eclared a n o ption. a nd th e r efore a possibititr.41 but hislo r ical researc h is fo u n d ed o n probabilities b ased o n t he whole extent o f the e \•ide nce. Using the Iaue r m odel, within whic h historica l questio n s arc as ked. 10 intro duce hypo thetical possib iliti es (e.g .. ~Th ey j wa m ight h:we gon e to Egypt~ we can not say for certain"') i.s to so w co n fu sion amo ng those fo r wh om o n e is a tcach c r- :m d if this is done knowing ly. it a mounts to d isho n esty.
  
  5. Avoiding historicis t reductions La.sl. in my vie w, it is a m is ta ke fo r us t.o 1r im the m e mor}' oft he b its th at we think are ~ l ate r accretions.. o n the as." Ulnptio n that we can get back to a basic ·core"' Lhal is the ~rea l me mo r y.,. The church is always. rem embe r ing . always forge II ing. and always add ing ne w inmger r lo its m c m oq' in it..o; atle m p t to d r aw o ut r et m o re oft he m p 1ery o f t he C hrist-even t. We can. fOr insta n ce. im :tge the crib-scen e :t.s two mig ranls sh eltering in cardbo a rd boxes and p acking cotses be n eath a high'''
  Christ.e, rednnf#<~r omuimn. l'lll?'f!, Pntris Unic.e. so/us rtultr p rincipium Ill/IUS iutf{abilitN:'t.'l
  
  #X
  
  ln ph il osoph ic~t l tcr ms. Lh i ~ i ~ no more than the logical rule that e\'crr proposil ion tnta il~ a nothcr proposition that is the h)'I>OihcticaJ d i~unction formed by a ttrm ~t n d its complement. The: &t:tlc:menl hodi" pill it ("today it is raining,.) logic:.llr <"ntails h{)(/it' u ut p lot it mtt ''o" plu it ("today dthcr it i$ raining or it is not raining"). l -h:L\'t" c:>:pre.uc:d lh i~ in the older la nguage of lraditional logic. but a :similar nolion can ll<' fou nd in modern pmpo.sitional logic as the ~Rul e of\'· lntroduclion..; :SC:<'" Ed,,·ardJohn Lemmon. &gin•ti"g /.tr~[k{ London: Ndron, 19-63). 22. To be sure, I am not suggc.sting Lhat a propositional cakulus cau b(" equated ,,·ith natural language: logic. ~~ L iiiU}ti
  11
  
  Appendix
  
  Resemblances between Matthew 1- 2 and Luke 1- 2 Patricia M. McDo nald, S.H.CJ
  
  Thil> lisl expa n ds th~ rc~emblanccs n oted by Raymond E. Bro h'll in TJu Birth of fhe Mt:uitth (rev. cdn: New Yo rk : Do ublcda)'. )993: 34- 35): and by J ost:p h A. Filzmyer in 71ur GoJptiJ AaQrding to Luke I- IX (Ancho r Bible 28: ~cw Yo rk:
  
  Do ubleday. 198 1: 307). I. Jesus• b irth is r elated to the reign of He rod lhc Grcm (!\•fatl2:L Lu ke 1:5).
  
  2. Mary, a "irgin, is engabred to .Joseph b ut not yet living with h im (Matt I: IS; Luke 1:27. 34). 3. J oseph belo ngs to t ile h ouse of David ( i\•lan I: 1- 16: Luke I :27). a nd because of h im. Jesus belon gs to Da vid 's line. 4 . An a ngel a n nouncesjesus' com ing birth to o ne of the p a rent..; ( Matt 1:20. Joseph: Lu ke 1:26. Marr: cf. a nnun ciation to Zech a r iah a bout John 111 1:13). 5. Jesus is recogn i7.cd as son of Da vid ( Matt I: 17, 25: Lu ke 1:27. 33). 6 . Jesu s is conccin •d through the Ho ly Spir il: a n :lngel announces th is to Joseph (Mall 1:20) o r ~h ry ( Luke 1:35). 7. Jesu s' conception d oe.o; not in\'OI\'e.Joscph (Matt 1:18- 19: Luke 1:34- 35). 8. ·:Jesus" is the n ame given br the a ngel befOre t he birth ( tvla LL 1:2 1: Luke I :31). 9. An angel id e ntifies J esus as savior ( l\•fau I:21 : Luke 2: I 1). 10. Jesus is b o rn otflc r Ma ry a n d J oseph come to li\'e together ( Matt I :25; Lu ke 2:5-7). tho u g h Mary i.s still engaged (mmi.tlemmmR) to .Jo.o;cph in Lu ke 2:5. I I. Jesus i.s born in BeLh lehem (Man 2:1: Luke 2:5-7). 12. Outsid ers sec a sign in the night s ky (star, :angels). come to visit. enter Crom the o p e n air. sec the child. a n d rciUrn '''hence th ey came (m agi in l\httt hew~ shc p he1·do; in Lu ke). 13. There is external testimony to .Jc.o;us ( magi in Man 2 :1 -1 2~ Simeon a nd Anna in Lu ke 2:25- 38). 14. Joseph. Mary. a nd j esus settle in Nazareth (Mall 2:23: Lu ke 2 :39, cf. 1:26).
  
  .4pptttld i:o:
  
  201
  
  15 . Jesus is rdCrred lo eit her as king (basili!u s) of 1he J ews ( Ma tt 2:2) or as one who will inhcril Oa\·id 's throne and re ig n (bnsiltru.trin) eternally O\'er J acob's h ouse. an d h ave an u n ending k ingdom (bnsil.ria . Luke 1:32-33). 16 . An angel appears loa male fig u re (joseph in Mall 1:20: Zechari;*h in Luke I :II). 17. Lig ht imagery is used : the star .seen ;\1 its r ising (m, li! tm ntoli) in M:Hlhcw (2 :2 , 9; d. 2: 1): in Luke. t he s heph erds aLnig ht sec I he glo ry of the Lord (2:8-9), Lhc dawn is from on h igh (n ntrfoli, 1:78). and God's sal\'alion (Jesu s?) is a lig ht fo r revelation lo the G entiles (2:32). IS. J esu s is termed C h risl ( O•ristos) in ~b n I:J. 16. 17: 2:4 an d l.u kc 2:11 (:md. p erh aps. implicit ly :tlso in 1:32-33). 19. There ~• re strong . b ut d iffc:relll. links with Judais m in each story (Old Testame nt fOrmula citations in Mau hew: te mple a nd othe r lilurgy tn Luke). 20 . l-Ie rod or Zechariah "is af raid " (lttrft,J.ftt;n , in Mall 2:3 : Luke 1: 12). 2 I. Notes about "joy" ;md "rejoicing.. (rhttm. dwirtin: Matt 2:10 ( both]; Luke 1:14 (\'erb]; 2:10 I noun}: cf. 1:47). 2 2. Spillin g o f mate childre n'.s b lood ( b)' d eath . Malt 2:16 - 18) o r circumcision ( Luke 1:59; 2:21). 23 . Motif of fu lfillment ( fh •c O ld Testa ment tOn nula citations in Matthew; l·cfe rcnce in Luke I:70 -7f> to the keeping o f di,,inc p romises).
  
  Dictionary of Technical Te rms, Significant Persons, and Ancient Texts
  
  Many of I hcse tcnns are explained more fully in 111~ Oxford Dictio·nt~ry of tlu Christian Owrc:h. cd. Fran k L. Cross and Elizabeth A. Livingston e (third cdn: Oxford/ Ncw\'ork: Oxford UnivcrsiL}' Press. 2005).
  
  Ado mai: Hebrew term fOr M(nw) Lord." used as fC\'Cren l substiiutc fOr
  
  YHWH Ammmcsis: Liturgical remembering Androccn trism: Male-centered allitud t: Angclophany: Appearance of an angel to a huma n p aso n Annuru:iation: Story of the angel Gahrid's \'isit to Mary ( LA1kc 1 : ~6-38)
  
  Aorist: Tense of Greek verbs generally used fo r past 1mrratio n Apo calyp tic Super nal u ral rc\•clatio n
  dements in th e second h~-tl f of a passage o r ep iso de nmtdt the dcmenLs in the firs l half but in reverse o rder [ )(lyl(ur:us /Jorumc111: J ewish scct~lri an lext fOund at Qumran (and in the Cctiro Geni·t..ah) containing community r ules Uiptych: In art,
  1ixlwiarl7irrms,
  
  Sign~{taml
  
  docume n t (4QI74) interp re ting sc.rip lu r.tl quotations in a mcs.si
  form criticism: Allemp l to diu:on :r the literary fOrm {genre) ~md 1he lif(:setting ofOks of the He brew Hib lc. from Genesis lO Joshua Historical cnlJC.I.sm: Asking que.o>tions o r histor icity about a text Historicist: ~:.;tphasizing the supreme imp ortance of histo ry Historicity: The amount of h i.storic.al fa ct in l -cc: ntu ry J ewish histo r ian
  LXX. see: Septuagint
  
  Per.ums, lind Atlcit>JII 7~xls
  
  203
  
  Mag i (plural of magus): Pcrsi:·tn or Babylon ian astrologers and interpreters of dreams Magnifiwtl: Mar}''s song of pr.ai.sc ( Luke 1:46- 5:>) Mid rash: Re telling o r b iblical sto r y with cxpl ~~n atorr expansions. often legendary MiJhrwh AOOI: Collection o f "Sarings o r Lhc: rathers" indudc:d in the compilation ofJewish law around 200 C(;: Modcrni..o;t: Mo,·ement condt~mnc:d by Pope Pius X in 1907. thai ad,·ocated c r ilical histo rical exatn inatio tt ofth t~ o rigins of Christianitr N~u n1ti,·c criticism: Analrsi$ of a sto ry as a literar y work. fOcusing on clements such a.s plo t, ch~\r.lctcrii'.ation. \•l cwpoint. a nd style Naz.ir itc: In J ewish trad ition . ::1 perso n who nmkes a \'0\\' forb idd ing co nsump tio n o r .alcohol, c u tting the hair, and touching a cor ps.t: (Num 6: 1-2 1) Nunc Dimittis: Simeo n's p raise of God ( Luke 2:29-32} Pasolini. Pier Pao lo (1922-1975}: Rad ical )Lali::m lihn m~l kcr Pelagian: Somcottc scekittg salvation by his or her own effOrts Pc nt.ateuch: J:"irst li\'e books of the He b rew Hib lc. from Gcnc$iS to Deuteronomy p,.pylinu G(Jjpt:1 J./tmttUUJ': ).1cdie\•
  1ixlruiml7irnn:;, Sign f{tamt Per.um s, m uJ l h lcit>nt 7~xls Pseudo- Ph ilo: Aulhor (perhaps flrsl Ct:ntUr)' C~~. forme r!)' id en tified wit h l'hi1o of Alexand ri;*) of a Buo/{ of Bibliral .4ntiquititrs retelling the scriptural story from Adam to o~w i d
  
  Q {saring$ source:): 'rnad iLion o f J esus' teachings pn:scf\'ed in Matth ew <1nd Luke but no t in ~·l a rk Qumran: Lo calion beside the Oc
  Suetonius: Ro nmn historian acti n~ m the early second ccnturr Cl:': Sr ntax: Arrangement of words so a$ to create meaning ·racilus: Ro nmn h isto rian acti\•e in the late fi rsl ccuturr CE: Talmud: Compilation of]ewi.sh leg<~l t ra­ d ition Cs ofJ acob's sons Tor:lh: Law of God lOr the Jews, often iden cilied with the l'e ntatcuch "l)'polog)': l£xpl ~~ mation of Old 1'"e:st:amen l e \·c m.s o r charactt:r.s as prefig u ring t:\•en ls or characters in the New Testmnt:nt Virgil: Latin poet o ffl rsl century HCE Virgimal con ception: 1\htrr·.s mimca1lous conception of J esus while .still a \•irgin (Luke 1:34-35) Visit
  Bibliography of Studies o n the Nativity, 1990- 2009
  
  T it is bibliography. compiled by Hen ry W:otnsbruugh an d J erctn y Corley, omits many gospel co mmenta ries and focuses mainly o n p ublicalions in English. An cx tc nsi\'c bi bl i ogr~l p hyofworks from 19 77 to )993 appears in the 1993 ed it ion of Rapnond E. Bro wn. 11u Birth fJj tlri! Mcuillh. 713-32. A11il>on, O:*lc C., '11u Nnv MoMs: A MttU)u·tm Typo/og)'. Minncapoli~: Aug:sburg For trcs.s; ~:dinburgll: T&T C lar k . 1993. - "'T he ~bgl's Angel.¥ in his Studic:r iu Mttllht:w: lnttnprttatiou Ptus nnd Prt>srnJ. li -35. Gr.m d R<~p ids: Ba ke r Academic, 2005. Anderson. J a nice Ca pel. "Matthe w, Gc:ndcnmd Rc<:tding.~ in .4 f~mit~ist Cmnfxm i(l11 /(J Matthew. cd. Amr:Jill Lc\'inc, 25 - 51. Sheffield: Sherfield Acad emic Press.
  
  2001. Au s, Roger Uavid, Matlltt.'ll) /-2 tmd thl' Virgimtl Com:t!ptitJu. Lanham, MU: Uni\'ersit y Press o f Ame r ica, 2004. Barkt:r, }largare t.. C.hr;.slmtu: Thr Original Story. Londo n: SPCK. 2008. Bauckham, Richard . Ga,jJ£1 WtJmn1: Studir.r Pj' lh~ Nmnrd 111tJmru it1 the Gospils. Lo ndon/ New Yo rk: 1''&'f Clark. 2002. Hauer, Da\·id R.• "T he King.ship of J esus in lhe Mattl1endon: Continuum, 2000. Binz, Stephen J., t\dwnl of thr Stwiur: .4 CtnmnrulliJJ tJU /Jut hifamy /Vamtfivt.s ofjt:nA1. <.:o llcgc\•illc: Liturgio1l Press, 1 ~196. Bock much I. ~h1rkus, S«ing lh~ H'tJrd: J<,.for.using New Tr.stnmrul Stw(r. Gr and R<tpid s: Bake r Academic, 200(). Bog~·lC rt, J>icrre-Mmtricc. "Luc Cl lc..o; l€critures d ans l'b ·angilc d e l'cnfancc a Ia lum iCrc des 'A nliq uitCs bibliq ucs,' in TheSUS's Birth. N~w Yo rk: Harp e r One, 2007. Boss. Sarah Jane. eel.. Mury: '/Jtt: Cumplct.r Hcsomu . New York O xfOrd UnivcrsiLy Prt:ss, 2007. Bomn, ~"ran toi s. A Cummf':t~/ory un the Gtufxl of tuk.r 1:1-9:50. Herm c neia. Minne::1po lis: Fo rtrt!s.s. 2002. H
  
  2(16 Bomn, fnm ~ois. l.ukc 111~ 'f'hroltJgitm: Fifty·l~'tJt >·t·t~n uf Ur..wmr:h. 1950-2005. Waco:
  
  Baylor Vni,·cr:sily Pn::s..o;. 2006.
  
  J.,
  
  lkookt~. George cd.. lJu: Birth ~:dinburgh: T&T Clark. 2000.
  
  Brown. Rarmond f. .. The Birth
  
  of Jt:~'IJ.J: /Jihlia1J and Th~ol<Jgical N11rrtimls.
  
  tif thr. Mwit1h. Second cdn
  
  New York: Doubleday.
  
  1993. llntncr. Frcde1·ick ll. Maflhcw, a Cummr.ntnry. Grand Rapids: ~:c rdmans. 2004. Buckwallcr. H. Oougla.s. The Oumulr.rtmd PurfJoJt uJ LuktlJ Clrn~.\·tology. Cambridge: Cmnbridgc Uniwr.sil)' Pn·ss. 19~U). Byrne. Hrcndan. T!u· Nospitrdity of GOO: A Nr."di11g of Luke's Go.\-ptl. Collegeville: LiLu rgical Press, 2000. - l.iftiug thr Hun!t.•rJ. Slough. UK: SL Paurs. 2004. Hyrne. Mauhcw. TJu· 1\1ty It mu: The Nnnutiw: tif tJu Birtb lJfjr.sus. Dublin: Columba. 2004. C<:arh:r. Warren. Mt~Uhew tmd lht: Mnrg;in.e A Sor.io-PoliiiatJ mul &ligious Nmding. Marrknoll: Orbis Boo ks: Shdlidd: Sheffield Acad c ntic Pres..o;, ~WOO. - Matt/mo mul f:mpin: Jmiit~J ExfJlomJium. Ha r risburg: Trinilr Press I nlernational, 2001. - "Mallhcan Chri:slo logy in Ronmn lm peri<1l Key: Matthew 1:1.'' in 'f11t Guspt'l uJ Mt~lth~w ffl lt.s l
  207
  
  Bibliograpby
  
  fan lhorpe. U.A.. C!tril·fmas P~wu. London: f:n ith~mno n . 2002. farri s. Stephen. -The Carllides o r Luke's fttfam:y Narratives: T he Ap p ropriatio tt or a Bib1ic:-tl TradiLion," in luiO· God's Prr.w:nr.r: PmJer in th.r Nn.v #lhltmu:,t. ed. Rich:ud N. Longt:nccker. 91-112. Gr:\nd Rapids: f.erd umn.s, 2001. ~'ilzmrer. J oSt:ph A., 1Ju•Otil' WJto /.f /o Come. Gr.md R<tpids: [c_•rdrmms, 200i. - Du: luterprdttlion ofSr.J'ifllun:. New York: Paulisl Press, 2008. rnmklin, ~:ric. Luke: /rJtt'JjJwttrr uj Ptml. Criti< uj Mt~tthew. JSN'f Supplement 92: ShefRcld:J SOT l' ress. 1994. freed. ~:dwin D., Thtt Storits of) mu'lJirt/r: A Critiatt /nlroduction. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic l' ress, 2001. Gnuse, Robert, "Dream Genre in the Mauhean lnG:mcy N
  4
  
  2(18
  
  Bibliograpby
  
  Ku hn. Karl A., "T he Po int o f the Step-Pan tlldism in LA.1 kc 1 -2 ,~ Nnu 'lf:sllmu:rtt SluditJ 17 (2001) 38- 49.
  
  L.andrr. Oa\'id, ·Narrati\·c Logic in I he Annuncialion 1.() ~·hu)' (Luke 1:26- 38)." ./tJurnal if /Jibliarl Lilemlunr I 14 ( l!t95) 65-79. Lc\•inc. Am r : Jill, ~)h1 Uhcw,·· in 1\'imtcn SBibft: Commwl
  'f riniLy Presslntcn mtional. 1998. Luz. Ulrich, MaU)w;v 1-7. Hc rm c nc ia. Minneapolis: Fortrcs.o;. 2007. Lunaraga,J .• "l-:1 Benc.-dictus ( l.c 1.f:JS-i 9} a tra\•Cs d d a rmnco,·· /Jibliw SO ( 1~19) 30f>-59. r...haggio n i. 13runo, ..'T he O rdinary Made Extraord in~nr,H Com1mmio 31 (2004) 8- 15. r..lalina, Bruce J .. a nd Jerome H. Ncyrcy, '·Honor an d S ha me in Luk<'·Acls: Pi,•o tal V::1lues of tht~ Meditc rr::mt~a n World ." in Tht! S()(ial1\~rld of l.uke-.4t:IJ: .1\·fudt:b'j&r lrrtt'Jjnrtatiou. cd.J c romc H . Nerrcy. 2!")- 65. Pc abodr. MA : Hendr ickson, 1991. r...haluf. Leomard. J., Tht Proplrtry ojl r.chanOh: A Study of the Btm:didu.5 in the Co11ltxl of Lukt·Afls. Rom e: Pontifical Gregoria n Un i\'t':rsil)'. 2000. r...hmn.s, Freder ic, ·•tJnc p rii:-re j u i n~ rc p riS<: en Luc 1.68- 69." J:plu-.lleridf's l.ilUrgiau 10(; ( 1992) 162- 6(;. r..har.ston S peight. R., "1\·l<arr. Mo l he r of.Jc$US. in Clt ri$Lian and Islamic T raditions," in !\fuslim.t mrd Christi<ms, Mw-lim.r turd Jrw.r. e d. ~·l ari ly n Robinson Witldman , 25- $4. Columbus. OH: Islam ic ~"oun dation of Central Ohio. 1992. Mason, Stc\•e n, a nd Jerome Mur phy-O'Co n no r. ·'Where wa.o; Jesus Hom ? 0 Liule Town of Na:t..arcth o r HeLh lehcm?" Biblt Nroiew 16 (2000) 3 1- 46. Mc Br ide. Oc n i.o;. 'thtt Go.~pr.l of Lukf': A Ui!jlectivt (.'qiJWJtnlnry. Dublin : Oominican Pu blicatio n s. 1991. - Where Oots llttt}'-St.r.f Stmy Br.giu1 U1fections lJI1 thtr lkgiuniug of lh~ Gtupds. Chawto ll. UK: Rc d c1npto r i..o;t Pub1ictltion.o;. 2006. Me ie r. J o h n 1'.. A Mmginnl.fn.v.vol. 1. Nt:wYork: Double-dar. 1991. Menken. ~1aartcn J:J., "'l'he Sources or the O ld Testamen t Q uotation in Mauhcw
  
  2:23.- Juunwf of Bibliwl Likmlurr 120 (2001) 4!>1- E;a. Miller, Geofl'rcr Oa,•id ...1'rying Lo F'ix the ~~mni l y Trees of J esus," Scripturr Bulll!lirl 3\1 (2009) 1 7~~0. Miller, Robert J., &rn Oiviuc '17re BirtJu of) r.w u tmd OtJu:r StmJ t(God. S
  Quarlnly 58 ( 1996) 6G5- i3. - •T he Suurces fOr ~i
  Bibliograpby
  
  200
  
  - J J1r Go.\pd of Afatthcw: A Commtuf
  Ecrdnmns/ Blctch ley: Patcrno:Hcr. 2005. Nowell, Irene. MJcsus' G reat-G rand mothers: Ma tthew's Four a nd More.- Cntlwlic , Hiblit:nl Qunrterly 70 (2008) 1-15. 0 F'ea rghai I, ~·ca rghus, The hltiYJdtu lion to Luki'·Ad:t: A Study of the Nolt: of Lk I, 14,44 ir~ lh~ Cumpo.\·ition of LulutS Jlv(}<\:&lwmr \\~rk . Analt:cta Biblica 126 . Rome: Pontifica l Biblical Institute, 1991. O lley. J.W., MGod on th e Mon:-A F'u r lh e r Lo o k
  .,,.,,, 10~ ( 199 1 - 1 !19~) 300- 301 . O'Lo ugh lin . 1'honms. Liturgiatl & .w mrw· jQr Adt}("Jll <md Ch,.i:rlmtutitle. Ouhlin : Colu mba, 2006. Ostmerer. Karl-l-lcin ric h, - Ocr Stanunb.aum des Verhcis.sencn: T he o logi:sche lm plikatione n d cr Namen u nd Z..th lcn in ~h. 1.1-17."' Nnv "!i:Jtnmtml Studif'.\' 46
  
  (2000) li 5- 92. O 'Toole. Robc:rt F.. l.uk~'s fJrt'JtWilltiQ'I of.ft!JU:r: A CllriJiulugy. Subsid ia Uiblica 25. Rome: Po n tifical Biblica l In stitu te, 20{)4. Pe a cocke. Art hu r. '' UNA o f our DNA."'" in 1Ju• Bitlh ofjeni.J: Bibliml tmd 'th£ufqgit:nl H.tjln:tionJ, c d . Geo rge J . Hroo kc. 59- 67. Edinburgh : T &T Clark. 2000. Pca r;son. Hrookc W.R .. HT he l.u ka n Censuses Re\'i.sitcd ."' CathoJir Biblic.al Qunrlerl.r 6 1 (19!19) 262- 82. Porter, Stanky b: .. t:d .. '/Ju: AII'.\'Jinh iu lhtr Old nud Nntt '/Cl·t. Rr:m .J ud ith M., "Lukc'.s Jn fa ncy Na rrati,·e;· Bib/,.. 'f'btlt1)'35 (1997) 340-45. Sdmberg. J a ne, Ml.u ke."' in m.IH/1"1/.l Bible Commelltnq, c d . Cer & Row, 1987: e xp;-tndcd twentie th <m n i\'ers
  210 Sch iissk r Fiorcn:.m, I::lisabcth, cd., &trrd1ing the Srripturu, wl~ 2: A hmilliJt Cumnmlftsry. New York: Crossrmtd . 1!194. Scobie. Charles H.H .. "'A C<m onic
  32i- 49. Gran d Rapid.s: Zondernm; ):lihon Keynes: Paternoster. 2005. Seim.1'u rid Karlsen. ''The Virg in Mother: Mar y ;md ascetic d iscipleship i l l lA•kc.'' in A J<"tminisl Cmnfxmi(ln /o Luktt. cd. Amr:Jill Levine. 89- 105. FCNT[C 3. New York: S hcflidd Aca d e mic Prt:ss, 2002. Stcnd::1hl. Kri.stt:r, .:Quis ct Undc? A n Anal}'sis of Mall hew 1- 2." in Thr b tlnprtlllli(Jll r(Mntthnu, cd. G raham N. Sta n ton, 69- 80. Second c d n (;:dinhurgh: T &T Cla r k. 1995. Slrauss. ~htrk L., 'nur J)twidic Mm·iah in l. rdc~·.co\th': T!r~ PromiM. and iSs fufjilbnt•nt in Luknn Clrr-i.~·loltJgy. JSNT Supplement 110: Sheffield: S heffield Ac.ad c ntic f' re.ss.
  
  1995. Stuhlmacher. Pe te r. /)j~ Grburl rla lmmmnul: dit: Wtilmachu.gt.ubichlen nus tl~m LukttS· wtd Maflhiiu.wvaugtlium. GOttingen: V<mdenhocck & Rup rech t. 2005. Tait, ~·lidmcl. "1"he f'lr in Lhc O inltncnl: \Vlmt docs Myrrh Forc.· shadow in ~-It 2: II?" Scriptu" Bull~tiu 39 (20()(J/ 2) 6..~ -75. Tr a er. James. a nd Richard Ho rsley. CJtriJ.Imas Uuwmpfu•rl: C&nJumrrism, ClrrUI. aurl Cultu'tl'. Harrisburg: 1' rinit)' l'rcss lnlcrmatio na l. 2001. T rexle r. Richard C.. '/ JJe jtnu·ntJ of lh~ Mllgi: Mmnin;p iu Hi:ilory oft~ ChriJ.tian SltJry. Pr inceto n : l'rincelo n Unin :rsity l'rc ss. Ht97. 'l)·son. Joseph B.. "The Birth N<arrali\•es and the Beginning o r Luke's Gospd." Sem~ia 52 ( 1990) 103- 20. ' '\ l·tmiuisl (.'(JI/lii!CIIInry. ed. f. lisabclh SchUs.o:lc.•r ~iorc.·m~a . 633- 77. New Yo rk: Cros..o:road , 199 4. We! burn. i\nd rcwJ.. Fmm tJ ~'irgin Womb: The AptKaiypl'l'&j:ldttm wnd lht!. \firgiu Birth. Bibl ic.al Interpre tation Series 91 . H osto n / IA~ ide n: Hr ill Academic, 2007. Wcren. \Vim J.C., M1'hc Fi,•c Wome n in ~htllhew 's Gcne a iOb")'.- Ctrtbolic Hiblit:al Quarurly 59 ( 1997} 21$8- 305.
  
  or
  
  Bibliograpby
  
  211
  
  Whiuers. Mark f'., ~Jesus in tht: ~·ootsteps ofJc:rcm i
  (1006) 229-4i. Wikox. Max. ~Luke 2.36- 38: Anna H.at Phanucl. of the Tribe of Asher. a t>rophctcss .. . : A Study in ~·lid rash in Mater ial Special lo Lu ke,~ in "flu fqur Gol·fJtl~ 1992, (_-d. 1-'r.tm Van Segbroed. d
  This page imemiollal~y le.fi blank
  
  Subject Index
  
  T his index omils \\'Ords occu rr ing very frequently. such as n;unc-s (e.g .. ~f:a ry a nd
  
  J oseph). places (r.g.. Hethldtcm. Nazareth), :md Gospels (e.g.• ~ l atlhe\)', Luke}. Aaron 6 1-62,88. 114. 173- 74 Abd 100. 101 Abigail 38
  
  Abmh;uu 7. 48. 62. 64. 79-80. &3. 90. 93- 95. 10<1. 104. 106- 109. I 16. I 34, 166 Acts of the Apostles 13 - 15. 25-26. 2!1-30, 36-37. 4 4. 46. 54. 57-58. 62-63. 68- 70. 72.104. 132. 159 Ad:un 93- 95. 100. 10 1. 10 4. 106. 173
  
  Census 13, 23. 29. 111. IS5 Chnuccr. Geoffrey 126 Chro nicles, Books o f 3S. 58, 60. SO. 91. 102. I 14 Cice ro 124 Circumcision of.Jcsus 31. IS4 Circumcision of.John 1he Baptisl :J1-42. 50 Cross. cru cifixion 4&. 77. 162 Cyrus Ihe Creal 80, 125
  
  Aeneas 114
  
  Ahaz 79. 82. 149 Alexander the Great 124 A11anwesiJ 183. 193 Androcemridty 115-16 An n:t 37- 38. 43- 46. 112 Annuncialio n to JoS4"ph 116- 21 An nunciation to Mary 14. 31. 38- 39. 69-70. 160. 163. 184 An nundation to Zechariah 14. j) Apocalyplic 30. 102 Ascc nslon 32. 35-36 Assyria. Assyrians 82-8:3. SS. I 14 Aug ustine, St 104. 105. 124 Augu stus, F.m peror 9. 20, 23. 27- 30. 69. 71. 8 4. 114. 118 Bab\'lon. Jbbrlon ians 80- 83, SiJ-SG, SS. '93. 114. f33 Ba khtin, r..tikhail 14 1- 46 Ba l:tam 10. 122. 133 Har·nabru. l .1!1.11'1'4j 103. 104 Bathsheba 21. 79. 115. 119 Bc ncclictus 13. 15-16,47- 66 Botticdli. Sandro 159 Carnival, cam h·aJcsquc 141-47 Cave IS5. JS7-SS
  
  Daniel 92-93,95. 98, 102. 104. l07-J09. 132. 135 David . King 21.34- 35. 4S. 54.57- 60. 64- 65. 79-80.84.90.93. 10 4. 131 D~wid i c d escelll 5- 7. ]5. 2&. 2'{1, 47. 84- 85. 107-11 1, 115.124-25.130. I33- 34. 166 Da,•idic house. dpmsly 50- 5 1' 55- 56, 59- 62.64. Gti. 70-71. 82 Da,·idic ~·lessbh 30. 110. 129, 186-87 De bo rah 3S. 40-41.45. 99 Dc ulc ronomr 59.80. 96- 9S. 118.120 Dio C:Lssius 20. 122 Drcam (s) tl7. 123
  
  Egrp• 10. 41. 57. 62. 82. 88. 90. II 1-12. llS-16. 128. 167, 174. 1S5-S6 Elijah 39. 45. :)2 Elish:a 45. 52 Elh:ah<:th 14- 15. 2'2. 37-42.45-46.50. 72- 75 Emm :an ud . Immanuel 8. 82, 110. 149 Em maus 32. 74. 128 EnncalC'Hch 98 F.n<x:A. llorJ« of B. 102. 103. 126 Epiph:any. Feast of 124. 184. 191-92 Esthe r 38
  
  SubjtXt lnd~x
  
  214 f.usebius 2.3 f.xodus. Rook of 10. 36. 38. 40-4 1,
  
  59-62. 1\4.68,88, 107. 127. 152. 193 f:xodus C"\ 'Cnt 60-63.88. 107. 127 E\'c 162 f.;,:<'kicl 3S- :39. 5&. 62. SO F'e minist inte r pretation 19-22. 37-46.
  
  11 :), 119 F'or mula citatio ns, quota do ns S, 110, 119.
  
  128-30 F'r.ankinccnsc 34. 122, 150. 190 c~l briel 30-31. 3S. 69-i' I. 73. 7S.. HI Ct.•matri:t 107 Genc:alogr 79-81.91-109. 11 6. 137
  
  J erome. St 79 Jesse Tree 186 J ethro 60 J oachim & An ne 184-85. 188 J oel 38. 46 J ohn Lhc- Baptist 14-16. 25. 31. 41-42. 45, 47. 49-50.63. 66. 70-71.74, 169. 184 J oseph (Genesis p:atriarch) 7-S. 16, 61- 62. 117. 122 J oseph o f Arirnathca 34 J osephus 10. 20,8:3-85.114-15. 125-27 J oshua. Book o f 59, 6.5. 97 J oshua. ligure o f 65. S2. 97- 99 J udges. BO<>k of 9. 35, 129 J udith 4 1. 43. 45 J ustin ~f:tnvr. St 6. 188
  
  Genesis, Book o f 7-S. 16. 61-62. 64. 79.
  
  94-95.97.99. 102, 103. 105. 106. 117. 119, 122. 131' 162 G hirlandaio. Domenico 24. 33. 36 Gideon 35. 99 Gold 34. 122. 150. 158. 190 Habakkuk 156 Hadith 165- 66. 173
  
  Hann:ah :38 1-Icxatcuc:h 97-98 H istorichr 4- 6, 1•1. li0-15, 121-23.
  
  126-28 H istoriography. cr<"atin~ I 13- 14
  
  HiSiory 27,91-94, 101. 104, 105. lOS. 180- 81. 187. 191. 195-98 Holl)'h'ood 138- 39 Homer 114- 15 Horn o f sal\'alion 53-55 Hosea ~1. 88. 128. 153 Huldah 38. 45 (!legitimacy 19- 20. 119-21 lnum•nud. F.mnmuuc:l 8.82. 110.149 Implied rt':tder 26 Incarnation 148. 155, 192-93 Inn 67- 76. Ill lsa:tc l 20. '122.177 lsai:th S-9. 38-39. 45.61. SO. 82.89-91. 118 -20. 122. 125-26. 129. 134-33 J :.cob 122. 133. 150 J acl 40 J eremiah 9. 38. 43, GS. 8 1. 86. 102. 120. 129. 163
  
  Kings. Rooks of 60. 64, 80. I 14, 122 l.iturgr 30. 48. 59. 181. 183. 186. 189. 191-97. 199 Maccabees. Books of S. 6S Magi 10-11.34.77.84-85. 111-12. 115, 121-26. 132-:19. 141. 145-47. 158. 163. 191 Magnitic.H 13.15-16.20.22. 40-41.160 Man:tsseh. King 7~•-SO. I 14 Mangor 23-24. 32-33. Ill. 128. 132. 189-90 M:trr Magdalene 42. 164 Masacc_io 139 M:tssacre of Innocents 111- -12. 123. 126-28. 184. 186 Mecca 166. 168 Messben. Olivier 157 ?.·Jicah 2'9. :34. 85.89. 126, 129 ]..•1ilknari:ani!im 94 Miri:un :38.4 1. 45. 127. 174 Mishnah 106. 117 Moses 10. 20. 35. 38. 43. 60-ll2. 88. 95-98.109.110.114-15.127-28.131, 166, 176-77 Myrr h 34. 122. 123, 157, 164.190 Naomi 40 Na1X>Icon \12 Nath;m 62 N:az:iritc 9. 129 Noadiah 3S Nooh 93- 95. 100. 104. 106, 166
  
  215 Numbers. Rook o f 9. 9S. 122,133.
  
  150. 174 Nunc Dimiuis 13 Odysseus 16
  
  Origen 53 P:L<>olini. Pier J~olo 132. 136-4:J Pcnt:tteuch 95- 97 Pepysiatt Go.1~l HarmMy 14 Pc:~er
  
  42. 4-4
  
  J>Jmmoh 40, 60. 88. 114-15. 127. 176 Phili)> !he C"\<:mge-lisL 38. 44 Philo 114. 12"2. 134 Pliny 122 Prcscnt:llion of .Jesus in lcmplc 33. 111 -12, 163. 184. 188 l>rescntalion of t\l:ary in 1cmplc 1S4- S5 Prisc:1 4ll
  
  Prc/Pw.mgdilun, Prwoetvmgdium 113. 171. 175. 188. 194 Psalms 53. 55. 60. 80.84-8:1. SS. 94, 103. 104, 118. 122. 12·1. 134- 35. 151. 190-92 P.{aimufSoiormnt 16 l)seudo-Philo 20. 114 Quirinius I:J. 69. 71 Qumran 17-18. 102, 122. 12S Qur'an 165- 79 R:tbc:J:ais. fr:uu;ois 141-42 R:lChd 9. 129. Hl3 R:thab 79.98-99. li S. 119 Rc hoboam 79-80 R<-·surrc:clion 5. 32- 33. 35, 42, 100. 105 Rcwl:ation. Book of 38. 53. 93-94 Ro me 24. 29, 72. 77-90. 104. 114. 116, 149-50. 182. 184 R t~~h 21. 40. 79. 115.119
  
  Samson 9. 99. 129 Samuel. Books of 17, :J3. 61. 65. 68.
  
  84, 129 Sarah 38 Saul 57- :>S Septuagint (LXX) 11- 13. 68. 133 Scp1uagirualisms 12. 31 Shcphc rd (s) 23-24.27-28.31-.35. 72- 73, 75-76.85-86. 111, 129. 132. 156. 190 Simeon 16. 33. 43-44. I 12 Sir-...ch 8. 89 Solomon ~). 6(), 64 - 63. 7~80. Ill. 122. 125. 166 Star 10. 84. 122-25. 133. 150. 158. 182. 190 Step parallelism 16-17 Straho 124 Suctonius 20. 12'2 Tacitus 79. S3 T:tlmud 34. 38, 117 T:1m:1r 79. I I5. 119 Tertullhln 124 1~.flmut>11ts IJj dtt> Twtlve Palrit:mlu S
  
  Tobi1 16. 30 Tomb ofj csus 2-1. 32- 33
  
  Typology 9 \';..lic:m II 179 Vespasi:m liS
  
  Virgil 114- 15, 122 Visilation 14. IG. 20. 39-40. 184 Vohaire 90 Vulgale 28. 34, 68 Wisdom of Solomon 8, S9 Zcch:ariah (faiJl crof.John) 14- 15.31-32. 4l-42. 44. 47-66. 70-71.73- 75. 169-72 Zl~clmri :t h. Hook o f 102. 126