Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making, vol. 1

THE MISSION OF JESUS §11.1
Here, as in other cases, the most obvious explanation for the difference between
Matthew and Mark is that Matthew has modified Mark, while staying as closely
as possible to Mark's wording. Why should Mark eliminate a reference to Jesus'
father? But the awkwardness of the second question in Matthew points in the opposite
direction. Much more intriguing: to call someone the son of his mother
(Mark) would most probably strike many as implying some hint of illegitimacy
(father unknown); otherwise he would be known as the son of his father (cf. Luke
4.23-38). 36 To avoid such an implication is surely the most obvious reason why
Matthew thought it desirable to modify the tradition taken over from Mark. 37 In
short, the Markan tradition may be evidence of some popular rumour regarding
an irregularity in Jesus' birth. 38 (2) Does Matthew's inclusion in Jesus' genealogy
of four women remembered for irregular sexual encounters, Tamar, Rahab,
Ruth, and the wife of Uriah (Bathsheba) (Matt. 1.3, 5, 6), 39 imply an attempt on
his part to absorb such rumours regarding Mary into his history of salvation? 40
(3) Does the jibe attributed to Jesus' opponents in John 8 have a similar implication
— 'We were not born from porneia' (8.41) — since porneia covers a wide
range of illicit sexual relations?
What are we to make of these data? Jane Schaberg confidently deduces
that Jesus was indeed illegitimate and that this was known by Matthew and
Luke. 41 Given the limited data available, a historical judgment cannot exclude
the possibility of Jesus' illegitimacy. But the basis for the inference is exceedingly
thin. Mark's language may have been judged too casual by those who sub-
36. E. Stauffer, 'Jesus, Geschichte und Verkündigung', ANRW 11.25.1 (1982) 3-130
(here 23-25, 104 n. 835).
37. The variant reading for Mark 6.3 of p 45 and others ('Is not this the son of the carpenter
and of Mary?') is probably to be explained along the same lines. Crossan suggests, less
plausibly, that there was some embarrassment (cf. Luke 4.22; John 6.42) at calling Jesus a 'carpenter'
(Birth 349-50). On tektön ('carpenter') see above, chapter 9 n. 274.
38. The alternative explanation, that Joseph had been long dead (as in Brown, Birth 540-
41), does not explain why p 45 and Matthew found it necessary to modify the original Markan
text. In describing 'son of Mary' as a '"flip" comment', Meier probably does not give enough
weight to what he earlier described as 'the derogatory tone of the Nazarenes' remarks' which
caused Matthew and Luke to change Mark's text (Marginal Jew 1.225-27).
39. Tamar, who in effect seduced Judah (Genesis 38), Rahab the prostitute (Josh. 2.1-21;
6.22-25), Ruth who arguably may have seduced Boaz (Ruth 3.6-13), and Bathsheba, seduced
by David (2 Sam. 11.2-27).
40. Brown, Birth 71-74. See the review of interpretations in Davies and Allison, Matthew
1.170-72; also W. J. C. Weren, 'The Five Women in Matthew's Genealogy', CBQ 59
(1997) 288-305; Freed, Stories ch. 2.
41. J. Schaberg, The Illegitimacy of Jesus: A Feminist Theological Interpretation of the
Infancy Narratives (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1987; paperback New York: Crossroad,
1990); followed by G. Lüdemann, Virgin Birth? The Real Story of Mary and Her Son Jesus
(London: SCM, 1998).
346