final paper for Who is Jesus?

Novum Testamentum An International Quarterly for

New Testament and Related Studies

brill.nl/nt

Oracles, M yth, and Luke’s N ativity Story

J. Duncan M. Derrett London

Abstract Luke 1:31; 2:8-20, 46-49 are illuminated by the myth of Ion as dramatised by Euripides. Apollo begot Ion on Creusa, who married Xuthus, a supernumerary parent for Ion, provid- ing him with a kingdom. The shepherds recall the “royal foundling” myth; the manger recalls reproaches of the Old Israel— at once signs of birth and burial.

Keywords Ezek 16; Ion; Isa 1:2-4; Luke 1:31; 2:8-20; 46-49; mythology; swaddling; shepherd

Preamble

Professors of theology and sceptics of every shade save Robertson1 have consistently ignored a source for Lukes story-telling. It is too soon to determine his motives for the result, yet one must make a beginning. The key to his Nativity lies in the myth of generation by a deity, as illustrated by the story of Ion,2 a myth which debouched into history in the fourth-third centuries BC. The myths centre is an oracle. The fame of oracles in the ancient world is not doubted, Alexander the Great being an outstanding believer.3 In Luke we find an artistic version of the oracle of God uttered by his accredited messenger Gabriel regarding two persons, namely the birth of the Baptist and the adventures of Jesus from his first public appear- ance (2:22) and as a boy in the Temple (2:41-49).

1} J.M. Robertson, Christianity and Mythology (2nd ed.: London: Watts, 1936) 183, 186, 193, 199, 306. 2) R. Stoneman, The Ancient Oracles: Making the Gods Speak (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2011) 12-13, 28. 3) Stoneman, Ancient, introduction, 8-11, 106-107, 126-127.

BRILL Novum Testamentum 5 4 (2012) 258-268

DOI: 10.1 163/1 56 8 53 6 12 X 6 4 53 7 8© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2012

259Oracles, Myth, and Lukes Nativity Story

Luke knew that Greeks would recognise “Moses and the prophets” (1:69־ 70; 16:31; 24:27),4 however obtained, as an equivalent to collections of oracles consulted by Jews for centuries. Even before Luke Christians regarded the scriptures as “oracles” (Rom 3:2; Acts 7:31-32; Heb 5:12).

An oracle is hardly esteemed if it does not eventuate in fact, and con- formably Luke implies (23:43) that Gabriel told the truth when the glory at 2:14 was replicated in the homely meal at 24:30 (cf. 22:30). Salvation had indeed begun.5

An oracle answers an applicant,6 and in Luke this takes place specifically (1:13). Jesus’ acclamation at 19:38 (Ps 117:26 LXX) is such a plea; many want an end to suffering under foreign rule (itself due to collective sins) and there are watchers for the Messiah (Dan 9; Luke 2:25, 38; 23:51; Acts 10:4). Oracles are rarely fulfilled to the letter (Thucydides, Hist. 5.26.3-4); but Lukes story is fulfilled (1:1, 22, 45, 63; 22:22, 29, 37).7 No doubt there was scepticism of oracles, though they might be embedded in stories,8 responding to political and military questions (was the god with them?).9 Therefore the fates of kings and leaders concern them10 and predictions occur,11 so that they facilitate plots,12 often laying down conditions in their prophecies.13 They offer opportunities for manipulation by politicians, their frauds and bribes.14

Surprisingly they may permit applicants to test the oracle more or less subtly (compare Judg 6:36-39).15

4) Stoneman, Ancient, 113, 114, 194, 210; Alexander the Great (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2010) 7-8, 54-55, 151, 187. Note Rom 1:2. 5) “Salvation” (2:11) can be political (1:71; Xenophon, Hell. 3.3.4) or religious (19:10;

23:39, 43). There are ambiguities at 23:51 and 24:21; and 23:35 shows irony. 6) Luke 3:7-9, 10-14; 1:13, 25; Stoneman, Ancient, 19. 7) “Necessity” is ascertained from prophecy: 24:26, 44. Prediction is not seldom oracular: 1:13, 14-17, 20, 31, 37; 2:21; 3:16. 8) Stoneman, Ancient, 4, 13 (where oracles succeed). 9) Stoneman, Ancient, 2, 7 39, 48; Thucydides, Hist. 2.54.4; Plato, Leg. 9.871 C-D; 11.921A. 10) Stoneman, Ancient, 8. 10 Stoneman, Ancient, 11. Compare Luke 1:15, 32. 12) Stoneman, Ancient, 11, 12. 13) Stoneman, Ancient, 7, 12, 24. Compare Luke 10:6; 21:24. 14) Stoneman, Ancient, 22, 37, 52; Plutarch, Lys. 25.2-3. 15) Stoneman, Ancient, 45-47, 53.

260 ].D .M . Derretí/ Novum Testamentum 5 4 (2012) 258-268

We shall refer to the myth of Ion.16 It conforms largely to the well- known “royal-foundling, hidden-leader” pattern. Like other examples it contains the five elements of abandonment, discovery, adoption, revela- tion, and the consummation which implies reinstatement. Usually the foundling is discovered by one or more shepherds, goatherds or similar bucolic functionaries, a pattern to which Ion offers a partial exception.17 If Shakespeares Winters Talen carried his audiences through that series we know the myth was long-lived. For Ion I use the Oxford Classical Texts series, Euripidis fabulae, Vol. 2 and the translation by Vellacott,19 whose criticisms of Euripides’ image of fifth century Athenian taste are irrelevant for us, as is his approval of young Ions own charm. I shall summarize the story inserting line-numbers to assist verification of particulars.

Ion

The world-wide admiration for Euripides was notorious (Plutarch, Nie. 29). His Ion was the most widely known account of the mythical founder of the Ionian (chiefly Asian) colonies of Greeks (75, 661, 802, 1581-1588).20 Apollo raped (11, 437-438, 444-447, 887-896, 941) a virgin called Cre- usa. One meeting is enough to start a pregnancy,21 and Leda and Danae illustrate the proposition that rape was not invariable in such cases. Creusa was overwhelmed with shame (336, 868-869). In the cave (288, 949) of the rape she bore, without “complications” (1594-1597), a son whom she

16) L.A. Halford-Stevens, Oxford Classical Dictionary (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996) 763. Herodotus, Hist. 7. 94; Plato, Euthy. 302C-D. 17) Shepherd(s): Livy, Hist. 1.4-5; Annius quoted by Varro; Longus Daphnis and Chloe 4.35; Pausanias, 1.38.8; Apollodorus 2.7.4. For Pelias son of Tyro see Homer, Od. 11.257. Goatherd(s): Menander, Epitrepontes 173K26 (see P. Vellacott, Theophrastus, The Characters; Menander, Plays and Fragments (2nd ed.; Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1993) 119). Cattleherd(s): Euripides, Iph. Aul. 1284-1294; Hel. 29-30; Plutarch, Rom. 2.6; Herodotus 1.110-113; Diodorus Siculus, 2.4.4; Apollodorus 3.9.1. Swineherd: Plutarch, Rom. 6.1. Horse-keeper: Apollodorus 1.9.8 (Tyros twins). 18) Act 2, scene 3; Act 3, scene 3; Act 4, scene 5; Act 5, scene 2. Cymbeline Act 5, scene 5 (recognition). 19) P. Vellacott, Euripides'. The Bacchae and Other Plays (London: Penguin, 1973) 41-88. R. Graves, The Greek Myths (2 vols.; Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1960) 1:§44, 162-163; J. March, The Penguin Book o f Classical Myths (London: Penguin, 2010) 18, 143, 234-236; Stoneman, Ancient, 12-13, 28. 20) Apollodorus, 1.7.3; J.M. Cook, The Greeks in Ionia and the East (London: Thames & Hudson, 1978) 24. 21) Homer, Od. 11.249-250. Compare Plutarch, Mor. 718 A-B.

261Oracles, Myth, and Lukes Nativity Story

wrapped in material woven by herself and then placed in a cradle. Apollo, fearing the expected animals (348, 502-506, 951, 1492-1495), employed Hermes to take cradle, swaddling material (32, 918, 1351, 1598) and all to Delphi, where the priestess (properly the Pythia) found the boy and brought him up as an attendant (cf. 1 Sam 2:21) and eventually steward of the gods property (55-56). Having no known parents the boy took Apollo to be his real genetic father (51, 109-110,136-140, 1607-1608), the tem- pie his home (53) and himself as Apollo’s perpetual servant (151-153, 183, 309, 327). In fact Apollo eventually gave Ion to Xuthus (see below) (1534- 1536, 1540, 1560-1561) for a limited purpose.

Creusa married Xuthus, like herself of royal descent. The pair, childless, came to consult two oracles (65-68, 369-545). Apollo induced Xuthus to believe Ion was a bastard of his (Xuthus) (70, 517-545, 554). Creusa rec- ognised the swaddling as hers and accepted the lad as her son (1386,1417- 1421, cf. 70). Xuthus sponsored Ion s claim to a throne ( 1296,1617-1618), and so became a supernumerary in the drama, his delusion remaining (537, 1602).

The emphasis on the swaddling is required here only for the recogni- tion. But before we turn to Bethlehem we must look at biblical “reproach” material which makes sense of Luke s “swaddling strips,” skilfully dove- tailed with the ubiquitous Greek myth. Meanwhile the Ion myth had a comical sequel.

The Myth Enters History

The myth of Ion inspired a confidence trick designed by that rogue, Lysander. About 413 BC a woman of Pontus (Asia Minor) claimed to be pregnant by Apollo. Her son (called Silenus), obviously not divine himself (Cicero, Nat. de. 3.18), was groomed to claim at Delphi the right to take and read secret oracles which would enable Lysander to be chosen king of Sparta. The plot failed, but became famous (Plutarch, Lys. 26).

Swaddling (Ezek 16) and Mangers (Isa 1:2-3)

The procedure to care for a new-born child was notorious.22 Ezek 16 shows all stages from the womb onwards omitted or neglected. Even the standard

22) Wis 7:3-6 cited above. The fact that “swaddling cloth” also meant “winding sheet” (for a corpse) is not irrelevant since that is what it would have been had the animals and birds

].D .M . D erretí/Novum Testamentum 54 (2012) 258-268262

climax, the swaddling, was omitted: as the Septuagint puts it, “you were not swaddled with swaddling strips.” So Yahweh saw Israel, with her dubi- ous ancestry (16:3), neglected in this disgusting state. She had been exposed “in the face of the field.״ She would have died had not Yahweh (who did not bother about the swaddling) said the immortal words “in thy bloods live,” i.e. live, grow up, and enable two major obligations of Judaism, cir- cumcision and the Passover to be performed.23 Her patrons motives are obvious to everyone. He “married” her as soon as she became “mature,” her assent being taken for granted. She went on to play the harlot, and we can imagine Yahwehs rivals (e.g. the Egyptians) laughing. Ezekiel suggests the harlotries continued, though Lukes angels (see below) seem to have thought otherwise. The allegory may be gross, but it is not obscure.

Swaddling proves maternal care. W hat of the manger? Isa 1:2-4 runs: “I have nourished and brought up children and they have rebelled against me; the ox knows his owner, and the ass his master s manger, but Israel does not know; my people do not consider. A sinful nation... Children that deal corruptly... they have despised the Holy One of Israel.” Israel is worse than animals notorious for their intransigence and stupidity. The connection between Isa 1:3 and Luke 2:17 is confirmed by Prov 14:4. Mangers indeed suggest oxen (Euripides, Ba. 618). Intriguing information is available. Mourned by cattle, the wife of Job died by their manger (Γ Job. 40.6-11; Job 39:9 MT, LXX, 11Q10:32). Cattle spared a helpless boy, the source of that myth being unknown.24 Oxen were formerly loyal {Sifre §306.1).

Bethlehem

Artists have taken advantage of the fact that a byre open for the admission of cattle and shepherds, the mangers cut into the cave wall,25 was virtually

found him (Pausanias, 1.43, 7). And the rock-cut socket (Luke 23:53) prefigures the tomb (cf. Matt 2:11: myrrh). 23) The reproach: M. Mansoor (ed.), Bahya b. Joseph Ibn Paquda, The Book o f Direction to the Duties o f the Heart (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1973) 189. The bloods (sic): S. Pines, Maimonides, Guide o f the Perplexed, Bk 3:46 (2 vols.; Chicago & London: Univer- sity of Chicago Press, 1974) 2:585; W. Braude, Pesiqta Rabbati (2 vols.; New Haven & London; Yale University Press, 1968) 1:365. It is a commonplace. 24) E.W. Burlinghame, Buddhist Legends (3 vols.; Cambridge: Harvard University, 1921) 1:257-258. 25) Origen, Cels. 1.51 (ca. AD 248). On “sockets” see Martin Hengel, TW NT 9:51-52; Justin Martyr, Dial. 78; Euripides, Ba. 509-510. Unattended free-standing wooden

263Oracles, Myth, and Lukes Nativity Story

open ground. Was the hotel inhospitable? An impending parturition would do more than annoy resident guests. No-one would know that Mary was about to share the boon of Sarah, a painless birth.26 Even if that happened what of the new-borns cries? Queries as to Josephs marriage would never occur to anyone in the hotel trade.

Ezek 16 has been cancelled. The levee with the shepherds was coupled with the royal-foundling pattern. So far as they are concerned (Luke 2:12, 16) he is a foundling. “Shepherds” suggests rulers,27 shepherds like David.28 “Son of David” (18:38-39; considered 20:41) fits this imagery. So Bethle- hem too fits. For that place, the Messiah and shepherding go together. Matt 2:5-6 correctly cites Mic 5:1-3 as the latters Aramaic paraphrase explains.

The story of Mary and Joseph, told from a Jewish standpoint, is alarm- ing. At Luke 1:27 Mary was already betrothed, a contract, presumably with her father, existed; money had changed hands (however little) (Deut 20:7). Joseph might later take her, after the ketubbah contract had been signed and the customary blessings spoken, so making her his wife. That Mary, prior to the marriage, should assent to a pregnancy from an unknown quarter is almost incredible. Gabriels promises (Luke 1:32-33) though he is a deputy (as it were) for the Pythia (imagining Apollo as God) (1:19, 26-30) and therefore hardly fallible (Dan 9:21-27), cannot annul Josephs contract. Deut 22:23-24 prescribes stoning for both parties should a betrothed woman have consensual intercourse with a third party.29 The claim that a betrothal carries with it all the legal consequences of a mar- riage30 is misleading,31 but if it were true it would not improve Marys position.

structures would make good firewood (as the shepherds would have noticed) in a territory short of trees. Loose wood would hardly remain 24 hours. 26) Painless birth: Isa 66:7; Midrash rabbah Levit. §14; Lucas Brugensis (d. 1619); Light- foot, Harmony (1644), in J. Lightfoot, Whole Works (13 vols.; London: Dove 1822) 4:197; Plautus, Amphitryon 1097-1099; Callimachus, Hymn 3.24-26; J.D.M. Derrett, Studies in the New Testament (6 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1977-1995) 2:33-38. 27) Isa 63:11; Jer 2:8; Zech 10:3; Nah 3:18; Mic 5:4. 28) 2 Sam 7:8; Jer 3:15; 23:4; 31:10 (LXX 38:10); Ezek 34:14,15,23; 37:24 (cf. John 10:3,4, 11; 21:15-17; Acts 20:28-29). Note Plato, Resp. 345A-E; 1 Sam 16:11-13, 19; Ps 78:70-72. 29) Josephus, c. Ap. 2.201. 30) C.B. Chavel (ed.), Maimón ides, The Commandments (2 vols.; London and New York: Soncino, 1967) 2:312 n2. 31) m. Sot. 4:1; Maimonides, Code, 4.1.10. §11. The written marriage contract does not make a marriage until the bride is led into the bridal chamber.

].D .M . Derretí / Novum Testamentum 5 4 (2012) 258-268264

Luke hoped his audiences knew the fundamentals of Jewish marriages. Betrothal normally led to home-taking by the husband, at least if she was mature. Consummation would make him her master (as it were), but could be delayed. In arranged marriages the bride may require postpone- ment of consummation,32 and signs of pregnancy could appear in the inter- val. These could result from gross interference by a third party or inept attempts at intercourse by the husband. The question of virginity—a phys- ical concept (was the hymen broken or not?)— could interest the brides family, for the “tokens of virginity” (Deut 22:14-17) were an insurance against fraud by the husband. The latter, in this case Joseph, finding Mary pregnant whilst still a virgin could consult experts who would admit that, though rare, cases were known of insemination without the normal bleed- ing. One unpleasant individual boasted he could have intercourse with virgins without rupturing a hymen.33 Joseph did not divorce Mary, as many in his situation might have done, and that brings us to the House of David fantasy.

It was a notorious piece of haggada that the Messiah (cf. Luke 2:38) would be born in the “House of David.”34 Now that could be achieved if a boy was born after his mother s marriage and home-taking but before con- summation. Joseph did not order the baby to be exposed— as he might have done if he believed it was the fruit of criminal interference with his betrothed. So the shepherds could testify that Joseph had recognised Jesus as a member of his household and thus a genuine scion of David (Luke 1:32, 69; 2:4; cf. Matt 1:17).

Thus Xuthus and Joseph had much in common. Deluded Xuthus spon- sored Ion for a real (if mythical) kingdom; Joseph sponsored his ostensible son Jesus so as to attain a hypothetical one (Luke 1:33; 22:29). In both cases the nominal fathers were supernumeraries on our stage.

We may return to Greek mythology. Greek virgins submitted (eventu- ally?) to divine impregnation, accepting the consequences and fa u t de mieux expected shepherds, herdsmen, or the like to take up the infant if animals had not already made away with it. Josephs astonishing complai- sanee would likewise fit a Greek tale; but the intricacies of Jewish

32) On achieving which he should make an announcement (!) (John 3.29-30); Ps 19:6(5). 33) b. Hag. I4b-15a; A.W. Streane, A Translation o f the Treatise Chagigah from the Babylonian Talmud (Cambridge: University Press, 1891) 84. 34) 2 Sam 7:16; 1 Kings 13:2; Zech 12:10; Pss. Sol. 17:21; Matt 1:20b; Luke 1:27; 12:4; b. Sanh. 9 7 a 9 8 .b־

265Oracles, Myth, and Lukes Nativity Story

matrimonial law would be beyond most Greeks. The angels’ song is very Jewish. It concentrates on the satisfaction, even (in legal terms) approval which humans have at last earned by their cooperation.35 Angels regard Marys naiveté as praiseworthy (cf. Isa 62:4-5). As in Ions case (341) the suspicion that a human father is responsible for Marys condition is natural.36 Gods claim that Jesus is his “son” (Luke 2:32; 3:22; 9:35) is not to the point (“son” means faithful representative) and conflicts with the frank confession at Luke 3:23; cf. 1:33. On the other hand divine impreg- nation stands in the genealogy of any great leader, be he Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, or another.

The Sequel

Ions fate is handled at Delphi by Apollo and by his deputies, by the Pythia, authentic guardian of the history of the affair, and the goddess Athena. Jesus and his ostensible parents enter the Temple at Jerusalem and there meet Simeon, an elder capable of oracular utterance. Riddling prophecy is aimed at Mary (Joseph being simply blessed).37 A prophetess, Anna, spoke unrecorded praise of Jesus to certain devotees of salvation. A parallel with Ion becomes visible in a strange episode. Jesus, at a Passover when he is only twelve (Luke 2:42-43), engages in debate with scholars in the same Temple and in spite of previous good behaviour (Luke 2:40) is rude to his parents contrary to Exod 20:12, so embarrassing as many scholars as remained on the spot. To Mary fell the task of complaining of his behav- iour. His father, some said, might well beat a son of twelve,38 but Luke thoughtfully prevaricates (3:23c). Jesus claims the Temple (the better

35) Angels’ doubts about the wisdom of Yahwehs creation of Adam and their awareness of his projects failures are well known to haggada (cf. Luke 10:21). One may note Gen 11:5־

NTS 34 (3) (1988) 472-475, of much ,7 2:14״. R.S. Kilpatrick, “The Greek Syntax of Luke interest, does not touch on our matters.

36) Plutarch, Mor. 145D; D.F. Strauss, The Life o f Jesus (5 th ed.; London: Sonnenschein, (1986) (9)97 1906) 141; G. Bostock, “Virgin Birth and Human Conception,” ExpT

.260-263 37) The indebtedness of Luke 2:29-35 to Jewish ideas is exposed by J.D.M. Derrett, “Anti- (1993) 6 legomenon, rhomphaiay dialogismoi (Luke 2:34-35): The Hidden Context,” FN

.3:17 207-218; Derrett, Studies, 6:69-75. Enigmatic words suit oracles: cf. Luke 38) Sons whose fathers were unknown were exempt from Exod 21:15. See the debate at

5:9-11 (”m. Yev 2:5; b. BB 149a; Maimonides, Code, book 14 (“judges”), section 3 (“rebels (.9 especially)

266 ].D .M . Derretí / Novum Testamentum 5 4 (2012) 258-268

interpretation of 2:49b) as his fathers house (cf. Ps 27:4) and operates as an oracle himself (Luke 10:23-24).

Ion never forsook Apollo as his father though Xuthus took him away from Delphi. Jesus urges that Gods claim on him is superior to that of his apparent parents. They were in fact under no obligation to encourage his precocity, and his outburst is tactless as well as egotistical. Ion, Jesus’ equal in double paternity, never had to make a choice between temple and pal- ace. We are considerately told that Jesus was obedient to his parents as soon as they got home (Luke 2:51, cf. 40). But as they had not designed him for an intellectual occupation (note v. 44) his gross repudiation of loyalty to Mary and his brothers at Luke 8:20-21 was logical, since they neither heard the Word of God (his true Father) nor did it. Admittedly Ion never needed to disparage his respectable family: he simply outstripped them. We might ask what Ion might have gained if he had repudiated Creusa and Xuthus. A near sinecure for life? His scepticism of kingship is outspoken (621, 632). Jesus’ choice entailed a frightful possibility39 from which his claim God was his Father (2:49) did not protect him (Luke 9:26; 10:22; 23:46; John 5:17-18). Though his kingdom is perpetual (Dan 2:44; 7:14, 27; Luke 1:32-33; 22:29), the son of God (6:35; 9:35; 10:16; 22:2) is not a son of a god like Theseus (22:70).

Conclusion

Lukes awareness of Euripides’ Bacchae at Acts 12:7; 16:26 is known and Acts 12:9 has been matched with Admetus exclamation at Euripides Alcestis (v. 1227). He was evidently at home in pagan literature and yet Israels new leader bore Gods satisfaction (Luke 3:22). Luke intends us to think he had Mary as his warrant for his basic facts (Luke 2:19, 51), his own oracle, as it were.

Perhaps Lukes motives may be inferred from his results. To preserve an oracle was a Greek practice, especially where it fitted a known event. The absurdity of a crucified person “ruling from the Cross”40 was exquisite irony, and could have been proved by the faith of martyrs (Acts 7:56-60; 13:50; 14:19; 2 Cor 11:23-27). That perhaps is the point where pagan

39) Luke 9:22, 44; 18:31-33; especially 24:7. 40) Isa 8:23-9:5 (9:1-6); Justin, Dial. 73; Barn 8:5. Did Luke know the tree symbol? See Deut 21:22-23 LXX (cf. Acts 5:30; 13:20; Gal 3:13; 1 Pet 2:24); J.B. Green, The Death o f Jesus (Tubingen: Mohr, 1988) 95 n327. Note Luke 23:38, 42-43.

267Oracles, Myth, and Lukes Nativity Story

enquirers began: what was this kings rule, (Luke 23:37) and how to account for it? To and for Greeks Luke tells the tale, assuming Jesus impor- tance needed no proof. Pagan as well as Jewish hearers and admirers of Euripides’ drama sense a kind of authentication from the ages, not an Asian fantasy but a constant challenge, and in that sense a preparation for the gospel. That is diffeient from the church’s method of “takeover” (adop- tion) of pagan themes, personalities (for example saints), and holy places.

The role of Joseph as bystander deserves closer investigation. He both is and is not (4:22) Jesus’ father but he is certainly his patron, whatever his domicile, though he contributes nothing to the conception of the Second Adam (1 Cor 15: 22, 45, 47; compare 1:32, 35).41 The church always needed patrons and he could be a suitable model. The notion that Joseph was the father of Jesus is a mere conjecture.42

Luke’s motives can be inferred from his gospel. We can perhaps attribute to him a hierarchy of them. Doubtless he wanted to conciliate and recruit existing devotees of the Baptist.43 But what is the significance of the diver- gences from the “exposed prince” pattern? Jesus is not technically “exposed” (to any immediate risk); the animals remain at a distance in spite of Ps 8:8(7); Joseph conveys no worldly kingdom and Mary is needed (a) to support Jesus’ (Messianic: Tg Ps. 8:5(4); 18(17)) authority, and (b) to verify ex postfacto the myth of his origin. The history behind all this remains conjectural.

The gospel does not show Jesus teaching Greeks,44 though he was acquainted with pagan customs.45 Luke 1:5-2:52 are sui genens and hith- erto of an origin both unknown and distinct.46 The fact that the language is strongly Hebraic47 need have no bearing on its conception. Luke’s Nativity

41) E. Stauffer, Die Theologie des Neuen Testaments (4th edn.; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1948) 12, 98; Rom 1:3; T. Stramare, Vangelo dei Misten della Vita Nascosta (Bornato: Sardini, 1998) 258-261. 42) J. Moffatt, An Introduction to the Literature o f the New Testament (3rd ed.; Edinburgh: Clark, 1920) 268-269. 43) W.G. Kümmel, Introduction to the New Testament (London: SCM, 1966) 96; Luke 1:76; 5:33 (compare Mark 2:18); 7:19-29; 11:10, 16:16; 20:6. 44) H. Conzelmann, The Theology o f St Luke (London: Faber and Faber, I960) 40-41, 172; C.F. Evans, Saint Luke (London: SCM, 1990) 28. 45) Matt 19:12c; A.E. Harvey, “Eunuchs for the Sake of the Kingdom,” HeyJ 48 (2007) 1-17. 46) Conzelmann, Theology, 118 (some peculiar statements could be overlooked.). 47) Kümmel, Introduction, 95-96.

268 J.D.M. Derretí / Novum Testamentum 5 4 (2012) 258-268

story is not legend as Dibelius thought48— it is entirely mythological, as we find at 23:6-12. And all the evangelists have found “homerisms” useful.49

Our myth as Luke leaves it unites Greek and Jewish Christians, so that neither enters the kingdom without the others’ cultural history. A myth־ free Nativity is a chimera: if one existed it would be no compliment to either culture.

(

48) M. Dibelius, “Jungfrauensohn und Krippenkind, Untersuchungen zur Geburtsge- schichte Jesu im Lukas-Evangelium” (Heidelberg: Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1932); Die Formgeschichte des Evangeliums (2nd ed.; Tübingen: Mohr, 1933) 120-121, 268-269. This went into a sixth edition in 1971, edited by G. Bornkamm. 49) J.D.M. Derrett, “Homer in the New Testament,״ ExpT 121 (2009) 66-69.

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(sV express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder( s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of ajournai typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American Theological Library Association.