This week we will be studying and discussing Matt 1 and Luke 1 in Sunday School, followed by Matt 2 and Luke 2 the next week. I would prefer to do all of Matthew's infancy narrative one week and then Luke's the next to avoid harmonizing. But since we will be putting the two accounts together in class, ideally we should have a clearer idea of what these "opening numbers" of those two gospels are. Here is an excerpt from Good Tidings of Great Joy, 141-42:
 |
| Fra Angelico, "Nativity," Wikmedia Commons |
The Infancy Narratives and the
Gospels of Matthew and Luke
The narratives that Matthew and Luke
composed to begin their Gospels constitute a distinct genre of writing. The two
accounts share much in common with each other and gave rise to some later apocryphal
imitations in the early centuries of Christianity. Though common in
scholarship, the term “Infancy Narrative” is not exact, because most of Matthew
1 and all of Luke 1 describe events before Jesus’ birth, and Luke 2:41–52
relates a story from Jesus’ boyhood. They are sometimes called “Infancy
Gospels,” though in many ways this term fits better for stand-alone,
post-biblical works that elaborated and tried to fill in gaps in the story of
Jesus’ nativity and boyhood as well as the background of Mary. Some of these
apocryphal works include the Protoevangelium (literally, “before the gospel”) of James, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, the Arabic Infancy Gospel, and the
Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew. Dating from the mid second century to as late as the
sixth, these extracanonical works cannot be relied upon for either historical
or theological details about Jesus.[1]
Certain factors suggest that the
Infancy Narratives, though they appear first in the Gospels and serve as their introductions,
were, in fact, written last. First, both Matthew and Luke could begin in
chapter 3 with their accounts of the ministry of John the Baptist and his
baptism of Jesus as Mark’s Gospel does. Second, none of the details provided in
the Infancy Narratives are referred to or even alluded to later in the Gospels.
If the first two chapters of these Gospels had been lost at an early stage of
their transmission, later readers would probably not even notice their absence.
On the other hand, each of the Infancy Narratives supports the themes and imagery
that characterize the rest of their Gospels, raising the possibility that
Matthew and Luke had each conceived of their Gospels, and perhaps even drafted
them, first before feeling the need to compose narratives that would treat the
important question of who Jesus was and how he was born.[2]
Possibly appended later to their
Gospels, the Infancy Narratives are compositions that could nonetheless stand
alone as self-contained stories. A mix of third-person narration of events,
quoted discourse, and dramatic episodes, both of them consist of a series of
stories that are carefully interwoven to both introduce how and why Jesus is
the Son of God as well as establish patterns and symbols that support the
larger Gospels. This has led one set of commentators to describe them as
“overtures” that, like musical overtures, provide a foretaste of the motifs,
themes, and movement of the larger work.[3]
Thus, Matthew’s establishment of Jesus as “the Son of David” in his Infancy
Narrative lays the groundwork for his depiction of Jesus as the Jewish Messiah
later in the Gospel. Likewise, the image of Christ as a new Moses, as seen in
Herod’s attempt to slay him and his returning from Egypt, anticipates Jesus’
role as the new lawgiver in the Sermon on the Mount. Further, the division of
the body of Matthew’s Gospel into five parts, hearkening back to the five books
of Moses, is anticipated by sets of five dreams and five formula quotations in
the Infancy Narrative.[4]
The christology of Luke’s Infancy
Narrative, which emphasizes Jesus’ role as the Son of God and the Savior for all people, accords with the portrayal
of Jesus in the rest of his Gospel, where Jesus is less exclusively a Jewish
Messiah. The prominence of Elisabeth, Mary, and Anna in the Infancy Narrative
establishes the precedent for Luke’s almost unique emphasis on women, who
appear with much more frequency in his Gospel than they do in any of the others.
Another emphasis in Luke is his concern for the poor and the marginalized, who
are highlighted both in the Magnificat
and in the appearance of shepherds at the manger rather than the wise, rich,
and powerful. Likewise, the centrality of the Holy Spirit in the conceptions of
John the Baptist and Jesus, as well as its role in inspiring Elisabeth,
Zacharias, and Simeon, is an anticipation of the central role of the Spirit in
the Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts.[5]
But above all, by emphasizing that Jesus is the Son of God, born to be the
Savior, Luke’s Infancy Narrative is, like Matthew’s, “the essential Gospel
story in miniature.”[6]
The differences in theological
focuses and themes of these two Gospels partly account for their significant
differences, though it is apparent that Matthew and Luke also had very
different sources for their stories. Whereas Luke either shared some of the
same major sources as Matthew for the main part of his Gospel, or perhaps even
had access to Matthew’s account, for his Infancy Narrative Luke followed a
different set of traditions and had somewhat different aims. By treating major
divisions of each Infancy Narrative in separate chapters and by generally
avoiding any attempt to harmonize the two accounts in this book, I have tried
to emphasize the uniqueness of each.
Matthew’s Infancy Narrative is considerably more
concise, about half the length of Luke’s, and if one excerpts his genealogy,
Luke’s account is almost four times as long. Matthew’s account gives a central
role to Joseph, who, as a son of David himself, provides the legal connection
to the royal inheritance. But perhaps more importantly, Joseph appears in
Matthew’s account as a righteous Israelite, one who is “just” or in harmony
with law, considerate to his espoused wife and protective of her and her child.
A faithful man in the mode of Joseph in Egypt who allows himself to be guided
by revelation, he both served as the called foster father and guardian of Jesus
and as a model for fathers—and mothers—in every age. Jesus himself is presented
as the rightful king, set against wicked kings, such as Herod and his son
Archelaus, whose power is shown to be temporal and fleeting. In every scene,
Jesus is seen as the fulfillment of prophecy, demonstrating who he was, how he
came into the world, and where the important first events of his life took
place.[7]
Luke’s longer account includes several dramatic scenes
as a prelude to his later description of the Nativity. Overall, Luke’s narrative
gives more background than does Matthew’s, and it includes careful comparisons
and contrasts that are best seen in the developed characters—such as Zacharias
and Mary—that serve as foils to one another. Luke’s focus on Mary is striking,
leading some to suggest that she or a member of her family might actually have
been one of Luke’s sources. However, the emphasis on Mary, and the relative
exclusion of Joseph as an active character, emphasizes that Jesus is not, in
fact Joseph’s son. Luke’s poetic use of canticles both echo Old Testament
salvation themes and make his stories deeply personal. By consciously imitating
the style of the Septuagint and through his use of characters reminiscent of
Old Testament figures, Luke successfully connects the story of Jesus with the
story of Israel, while at the time setting it on a wider, world stage and
broadening Jesus’ role to all people. Above all, Luke emphasizes joy, the good
news that the Savior of the world has been born.[8]
Still, substantive differences in the two
accounts—particularly the fact that Luke seems unaware of the Wise Men, the
malevolent actions of Herod, or the flight to Egypt—continue to lead some to
doubt the historicity of these stories. Nevertheless, on all the most important
points, the two stories agree: Jesus’ birth was long-prophesied, his mother was
named Mary, and he was then conceived in a miraculous and divine way, born in
the city of David, and recognized by those who were led to him by revelation. These
are the very points confirmed by Book of Mormon prophecy.
[1] Kelly, Origins of Christmas, 38–49. For translations and commentaries on the
Gospels of James and Thomas, see Ronald F. Hock, The Infancy Gospels of James and Thomas (Santa Rosa: Calif.:
Polebridge, 1995).
[2] Brown, Birth of the Messiah, 31–32, 48–49, 239–240; Vermes, Nativity, 147–48.
[3] Borg and Crossan, First Christmas, 38–39.
[4]
Borg and Crossan, First Christmas, 41–46.
[5]
Borg and Crossan, First Christmas, 46–52.
[6]
Brown, Birth of the Messiah, 7.
[7] Brown, Birth of the Messiah, 50–54; Borg and Crossan, First Christmas, 4–10; Huntsman, “Glad Tidings of Great Joy,”
53–54.
[8]
Brown, Birth of the Messiah, 250–53; Borg and Crossan, First Christmas, 10–21; Huntsman, “Glad Tidingsof Great Joy,” 54–56.
No comments:
Post a Comment