Chapter Two: Topical Essay

[smithm29]

What are five reasons given for defending the historical trustworthiness of Matthew's infancy narrative?

[Apollos]

1. Place names
2. People names
3. Historical events
4. Differences from pagan myths
5. Omission from other gospels

[odhiambo]

Originally Posted by smithm29

What are five reasons given for defending the historical trustworthiness of Matthew's infancy narrative?

1The Birth of Jesus in Bethlehem.
This is supported by the OT prophecyof the prophet Micah.
'But you [ Bethlehem] Ephrathah, the least of the clan of Judah, from you will comefor me a future ruler of Israel, whose origins go back to the distant past, to the days of old...' Micah 5:1

2: The visit of the Magi
3:The Flight into Egypt.
4: The massacre of the Infants in Bethlehem and its vicinity.
This fulfilled what had been said through the prophet Jeremiah,
' A voice was heard in the Ramah lamenting and weeping bitterly.
It is Rachel weeping for her children and she would not be consolled
since they were no more' Jer 31:15
5:The return from Egypt.
After Herod's death,Saint Joseph, in accordance with instructions from the angel of the Lord, brought the Holy Familly back to Israel, fulfilling the prophecy of Hosea 11:1
' Out of Egypt I called My Son'
From the above , each major occurance in Mathew's infancy narrative is supported by an OT prophecy which it fulfills, it is therefore historically trustworthy,
According my my Bible commentary, ' this appeal to the Old Testament indicates that the messiah's itinerary was guided by the will of God'

[odhiambo]

Originally Posted by smithm29

What are five reasons given for defending the historical trustworthiness of Matthew's infancy narrative?

Sorry for taking us back but I came across this commentary which I think is relevant.
The commentator has raised the question of reliability of the Infancy Narrative, arguing that there were no eye witnesses to the birth of Jesus, so how did the apostle know of what happened then? He did not attempt to supply an answer. Could a member of the Holy Family have talked? seems unlikely.
Your thoughts?

[NotWorthy]

Originally Posted by odhiambo

Sorry for taking us back but I came across this commentary which I think is relevant.
The commentator has raised the question of reliability of the Infancy Narrative, arguing that there were no eye witnesses to the birth of Jesus, so how did the apostle know of what happened then? He did not attempt to supply an answer. Could a member of the Holy Family have talked? seems unlikely.
Your thoughts?

Why would that seem unlikely? Wouldn't.... about a million people!.... ask Mary to tell stories about when Jesus was a Child? How many times have you wondered what happened to him between the ages of 2 and 30 (other than that little tête-à-tête in the Temple at the age of 12)?

Also remember that Mary was taken into the home of John, the Apostle. It is thought that she lived to the age of 72 (Christian tradition), which would mean that she lived for another 23 years or so after the death of Jesus. I would imagine that the subject of the boy Jesus came up once or twice.

[odhiambo]

Originally Posted by NotWorthy

Why would that seem unlikely? Wouldn't.... about a million people!.... ask Mary to tell stories about when Jesus was a Child? How many times have you wondered what happened to him between the ages of 2 and 30 (other than that little tête-à-tête in the Temple at the age of 12)?

Also remember that Mary was taken into the home of John, the Apostle. It is thought that she lived to the age of 72 (Christian tradition), which would mean that she lived for another 23 years or so after the death of Jesus. I would imagine that the subject of the boy Jesus came up once or twice.

You could be right. Yes, Jesus did give us ( represented by John ) Mary at the foot of the Cross. John was close to Jesus, and presumably to Mary as well, so it is easy to imagine an evening by the fire, reminiscing about Jesus. O.K. I buy it, you have a point.

I had no idea she lived for that long, whenever I think of her, it is as a young woman.

[NotWorthy]

Originally Posted by odhiambo

You could be right. Yes, Jesus did give us ( represented by John ) Mary at the foot of the Cross. John was close to Jesus, and presumably to Mary as well, so it is easy to imagine an evening by the fire, reminiscing about Jesus. O.K. I buy it, you have a point.

I had no idea she lived for that long, whenever I think of her, it is as a young woman.

"John was presumably close to Mary as well" would be an understatement. You'll see that John took Mary into his home. If Mary lived at John's home in Ephasus for 23 more years, then yes, it is not presumptuous to think that Mary "might" have talked about the boy Jesus.

Yes, Christian tradition says that Mary lived til the age of 72 before she was assumed into heaven. If Mary was indeed 16 years old when Jesus was born (I think the best guesses are 13 - 16 years of age), then you are looking at 23 - 24 more years for Mary.