Matthew’s birth narrative has been interpreted for centuries, but the passage has yet to be explored in great depth with social scientific criticism. The earliest commentaries, written by the Church Fathers, focus largely on defending the passage’s theological significance but make virtually no reference to its social dimensions. The majority of contemporary commentaries have begun to explain the cultural customs seen in the passage but fail to expand their exploration to view the passage within its full social context.
 |
| http://pilgrimpathways.wordpress.com/2010/12/25/matthews-birth-infancy-narrative-birth-of-the-anointed-deliverer/ |
They only touch upon social aspects such as honour and shame, which are most relevant to this paper, but do not develop their discussion fully to address the impact and consequences these values have within the society. Such a task requires reading between the lines and the insight afforded by social sciences. On turning to the birth narrative itself we will see it is more of a skeletal outline than a full account. It is a high context text, meaning Matthew wrote this passage assuming his readers would be well acquainted with the cultural context of the story and could therefore leave much unsaid. As a result, there is much more to be drawn from the passage than what is explicitly stated in the eight verses of abridged narrative. As a twenty-first century North Atlantic audience we are significantly distanced from the passage’s first-century Mediterranean culture. Therefore, the subtler messages built into this high context passage are not as obvious to us as they would have been to Matthew’s original audience. Without an understanding of the culture by which Mary and Joseph were influenced, we risk anachronistic interpretations of the story as well as overlooking key implications. In this paper we will use social scientific criticism to interpret Matthew 1:18-25. We will work our way through the passage applying ethnographies and social models, primarily that of honour and shame, in order to delve deeper into the issues mentioned only cursorily in the majority of commentaries. The aim of this paper is to provide a culturally enlightened explanation for Mary and Joseph’s behaviour that aligns with the overarching themes of Matthew’s gospel.
 |
| http://www.sarakatsani-folk-museum.gr/index.php?page=14 |
Before we can attempt to fill in the events and experiences occurring between the lines of Matthew’s short pericope, we must develop a foundational understanding of how first century Mediterranean society functioned. We will need to have enough information about general social life in that culture in order to know what behaviour was expected and therefore move forward to bridge the gaps. Social anthropologist J.K. Campbell’s study of the Sarakatsan people of modern Greece provides insight into the potential social workings of ancient biblical society; which this contemporary community still resembles. Similarly, Peter Walcot has studied the community at Vasilika in Greece, providing another cultural comparison for the society to which Mary and Joseph belonged. These ethnographies provide an opportunity for us to lay aside hypothetical models and observe real communities. Both Campbell and Walcot have observed that their respective communities revolve around the key value of honour.
 |
| http://i.ytimg.com/vi/aoCkMjSNSf4/0.jpg |
Social scientific bible scholars define honour as a person’s publicly verified claim to status, worth or value within their community. With shame as its counterpart, honour was the most important social value in first-century Mediterranean culture. The attainment of honour was everyone’s life goal. At the pinnacle of honour was female chastity. A female’s virginity was heavily protected and highly valued because in this patriarchal society reproductive power was of the utmost importance. Honour was attained both through inheritance, i.e. a child born into a more honourable family would have more honour than a child born into a less honourable family, and also through public victory in competitive social interactions. These two means of attaining honour are referred to as ascribed honour and acquired honour, respectively. In ancient Mediterranean culture, every social interaction was an opportunity to compete for acquired honour, which resulted in a foreseeably agonistic society. If one’s honour was challenged and one failed to defend it with a satisfactory response, it was transferred to the victorious challenger. The critical and very relative part of this social model is that this pattern of challenge and response had to occur publicly because it was the public that determined who emerged from the interaction victoriously. Matthew’s birth narrative is riddled with issues of honour both ascribed and acquired. Reading the passage with this in mind can produce fresh insight into the behaviour of Mary and Joseph.
 |
| http://thesocialsciences.com/2011/06/06/shame-and-honor-increase-cooperation/ |
 |
| http://revoltinthedesert.blogspot.com/2006/12/poverty-and-power-in-luke.html |
In light of this, the next thing we learn about Mary appears extremely scandalous. We are informed that while she is still a virgin she becomes pregnant. As readers, we have the advantage of also being informed that her pregnancy is from the Holy Spirit. Unfortunately Mary and her family did not receive this explanation. Unlike Luke’s birth narrative, Matthew’s gives no indication that Mary was divinely informed of her pregnancy. We can only assume she became aware of her condition through the natural signs of physiological changes. We must also remember Mary would not have been the only person observing her body. As mentioned in the previous paragraph, during this period of betrothal, family members would closely supervise the young couple. For a better understanding of the type of supervision to which Mary would have been subjected we will turn to the work of Lidia Sciama. Sciama utilizes J.K. Campbell’s work with the Sarakatsan to illuminate her research on privacy within Mediterranean anthropology. Her work indicates the close proximity and lack of privacy that would have been experienced by New Testament women.
 |
| http://www.zagorihotel.com/enpage4.html |
According to Campbell, the Sarakatsan live in family huts that have a diameter and height of approximately fourteen feet. The entire family share this one space.[9] It is only natural that in such confined quarters there was little privacy for any member of the family. We can also learn from Bruce Malina’s work on ancient Mediterranean anthropology that family houses were divided into female and male spaces. The female spaces were the innermost parts of the house so as to turn female attention inward. The outer communal areas were male spaces.[10] Women lived private lives and would only venture outside of the house regularly to fetch water from the well. They were typically chaperoned and covered from head to foot.
“Among the Sarakatsani [fetching water from the well] is regarded as a singularly hazardous activity as far as the risk to the family honour is concerned. A man intent on seduction need only wait at the well and he will in due course encounter virtually every woman in the village. The Sarakatsani often require their womenfolk to be chaperoned when getting water, not just to head off actual assault or elopement, but to prevent their neighbours, ever on the look-out for reasons to impugn the family honour, obtaining the slightest pretext for doing so, even if that involves making a false allegation.”[11]
“Thus the honorable woman,…strives to avoid the human contacts that might expose her to dishonor.”[12] We can speculate that these studies illustrate a lifestyle similar to that lived by Mary. It is therefore not unreasonable to suggest at least the female members of her family would quickly become aware of Mary’s pregnancy simply by the physiological signs. It is especially likely if we consider the possibility that Mary may not have been aware of her pregnancy and therefore would be making no effort to conceal any of these signs. It is likely she was quite young and perhaps not yet acquainted with the symptoms of pregnancy. Such innocence would surely enhance the probability of the pregnancy being discovered by other members of the family. At the very least we can assume Mary’s entire household would have been aware of her situation as soon as she began to display the symptoms.
 |
| http://www.sarakatsani-folk-museum.gr/index.php?page=14 |
Upon discovery of her pregnancy, Mary would no doubt be facing great dilemmas and worries. Living in a culture where family honour was paramount and largely based on female virtue, she would be faced with the burden of having shamed her entire family for her apparent sexual misconduct. In this patriarchal society, the men were responsible for protecting the females. Her pregnancy out of wedlock displayed to the community that her male protectors, primarily her father, her eldest brothers and her betrothed, had failed. As Matthew gives no indication that Mary was aware of her pregnancy, she would surely have been surprised and confused. She was aware of her innocence, but as far as everyone around her was concerned there would be only three possible explanations; she was raped, she committed adultery or Joseph impregnated her premaritally. As a member of Israelite society, Mary would have been aware of the various laws and consequences surrounding her situation. According to Mosaic laws regarding rape her life would have been endangered.
“In Old Testament law the penalty for the rape of an engaged virgin was death. If a man has sexual relations with such a woman in the town where she lives, both shall be stoned to death, ‘the young woman because she did not cry for help in the town and the man because he violated his neighbor’s wife.’ But if the woman is raped in the open country, where a cry for help would not be heard, only the man is to be put to death.”[13]
If adultery, instead of rape, was the decided explanation divorce was definite and death was probable. As a betrothed woman, Mary would be treated as if she were already married.[14] “Jewish, Greek, and Roman law all demanded that a man divorce his wife if she were guilty of adultery.”[15] There would be no second chances and Mary faced a severe threat of being stoned.[16] The dishonour that she had brought onto her family could only be washed away with her death.[17]
 |
| http://thisfragiletent.wordpress.com/2011/04/21/bible-nasties-3-truth-and-scripture/ |
The work of some scholars, including that of Craig Keener, Ulrich Luz and David Instone-Brewer, suggests Mary’s life may not have been in danger. Keener claims the Jewish courts of this period in history did not enforce the death penalty required in the Jewish laws regarding adultery. Luz asserts that stoning, as the punishment for adultery, was no longer practiced at the time of Mary’s pregnancy.[18] Instone-Brewer claims that according to ancient Near Eastern law, if a virgin is raped it is only the rapist that is punished.[19] As we can see, these studies address official laws and court sentencing. They fail to take into account the reality of what happened unofficially in the family’s home. Even if Mary’s life may not have been at risk in a public court, much evidence remains to suggest her family would have taken her punishment into their own hands. In today’s society, this consequence is commonly referred to as an ‘honour killing.’ Many modern interpreters dismiss or ignore the possibility that Mary was at risk of being killed. This assumption leads to anachronistic interpretations of the passage based on ignorance or disbelief of a culture so driven to protect honour. Matthew J. Marohl, however, explores the relationship of honour killings to Matthew’s birth narrative and exposes how our modern North Atlantic perspective has inhibited our interpretation of the social reality behind the passage. He explains in the case of adultery, it was not Mary’s honour at stake, as most commentators suggest, but rather that of her family.[20] He quotes Suad Abu Daya, a modern Palestinian woman, who says, “All the burden, even in cases of rape, is on the woman. She is the one who bears the consequences in any case, even by paying with her own life.”[21] These modern understandings of honour killings provide strong insight into how Mary’s situation could have been perceived and dealt with in her society. Moreover, we see similar behaviour in the Sarakatsan;
“In these circumstances [of female sexual misconduct] vengeance becomes primarily an act of purification. A father (or brother) must first destroy his daughter (or sister) and only afterwards turn his attention to the lover. Similarly, a husband ought first to kill a wife taken in adultery and then the paramour.”[22]
Appreciating the significance of honour within these communities reveals a high likelihood that Mary was facing death as a punishment for dishonouring her family.
The third possible explanation, that Joseph was the child’s father, presented lesser threat but was still unfavourable. “While [the] town would not have viewed a betrothed couple’s intercourse as seriously as adultery… townspeople would have questioned the moral commitment of both parties.”[23] If Joseph had chosen to reject her, her reputation and future chances of an honorable marriage would have been ruined. As a woman, her sole purpose and value was her ability to procreate[24] and without a husband to make this possible she would have been nothing more than a shameful burden to her family. “A girl who loses her virginity is liable to be punished with physical or ‘moral’ death; the latter involves isolation and virtual house arrest.”[25] While Mary was concerned about the consequences of her shameful situation, her family would have been facing the risk of losing the merger with Joseph’s family. They would have been wondering how and when Mary had managed to escape their close observation and dreading the public shame that was to come. It would have been her father’s responsibility to inform the male head of Joseph’s household of Mary’s pregnancy. They would then have awaited the response of Joseph and his family.
 |
| http://denbighcatholicchurch.blogspot.com/2010/12/my-sermon-for-4th-sunday-in-advent-year.html |
Upon learning of Mary’s pregnancy, Joseph would have been faced with a dilemma. Since Mary had not claimed rape and he knew he had not had intercourse with her, he would have been left to assume she had committed adultery. J.K. Campbell explains that among the Sarakatsan, “adultery attacks the moral integrity and honour of the family and makes a laughing-stock of its leader and head.”[26] Assuming Joseph’s society was similar to the Sarakatsan he would be facing
“…the pain of apparent betrayal in a world that considered adultery the ultimate theft – the stealing of another mans most precious possession, the undivided affection of his wife…the emotional response to such betrayal was often quite serious…Because a wife’s adultery could imply the husband’s inadequacy or his family’s poor choice of a mate, it shamed the husband as well.”[27]
As previously mentioned, the law would have required Joseph to break off his engagement in response to Mary’s supposed adultery. If he had not complied he would have faced serious social consequences.
“Roman law actually treated a husband who failed to divorce an unfaithful wife as a panderer exploiting his wife as a prostitute….Mediterranean society viewed with contempt the weakness of a man who let his love for his wife outweigh his appropriate honour in repudiating her…”[28]
 |
| http://www.mitchellteachers.org/WorldHistory/AncientRome/DailyLifeinAncientRome.htm |
Thus, Joseph would have viewed divorce as his only option. His choice would have been whether he was going to make the divorce public or private.[29]
It is therefore not surprising the next thing Matthew tells his audience is that “Joseph…being a just man, decided to break the engagement quietly, so as not to disgrace Mary publicly.” Divorce would indicate to society Joseph had found something unacceptable about Mary. This would be confirmed by her pregnancy. If he did not charge her for adultery, people would assume it was rape. It is possible Mary’s family would suffer less shame from rape, which could be pitied[30], than adultery. Therefore with a quiet divorce Joseph chose the lesser of two evils.[31] Interestingly, this conclusion does not fit with the aforementioned evidence of Mediterranean anthropology, which suggests no mercy was shown to females who dishonoured their families. In this situation, the social norm would have been a public divorce resulting in great shame for Mary’s family. An unjust man would have seized upon the opportunity for vengeful punishment and relished in shaming her publicly.[32] Had Joseph done this and taken her to court he could have profited greatly by potentially confiscating her dowry and being refunded the bride price he had paid upon betrothal.[33] Instead, Matthew makes it clear that Joseph is a just man. Therefore, not only does he not relish in Mary’s shame, he makes a counter-cultural effort to limit her punishment. Joseph’s behaviour can be contrasted to that of Judah who orders Tamar to be burned to death when her extramarital pregnancy is discovered.[34] Kroeger states that “[Joseph loved Mary too much] to expose her to public disgrace…”[35] This interpretation risks ethnocentrism because as mentioned previously, it is unlikely that Joseph and Mary knew each other well, let alone were in love. Matthew makes it clear that Joseph’s decision did not stem from spousal love so much as from righteousness.
.jpg) |
| http://tomatothoughts.blogdrive.com/ |
Joseph’s righteousness is emphasized as he manages both to uphold the law by divorcing Mary and repay her shameful deed with an honourable one, i.e. protecting her family’s honour as much as possible.[36] Matthew demonstrates how, as a just man, Joseph is willing to sacrifice social and economic growth in order to obey God.[37] An understanding of how the significance of divorce differs between modern Western society and ancient Mediterranean society further emphasizes Joseph’s sacrifice. In modern Western society divorce is primarily the concern of the couple while in ancient Mediterranean society it affected the entirety of both families who had hoped to unite and benefit from a social and economic alliance.[38] Therefore, both families would have felt the severity of Mary’s shameful situation and Joseph’s unexpected response. Both families were shamed and by divorcing her quietly Joseph’s family loses the potential to regain honour and finances.
Although Joseph’s actions express sensitivity to Mary’s honour, there is no indication he attempts to establish her innocence.[39] If he did not know her well he would have had little reason to trust her. Most biblical commentators seem to assume Joseph believed Mary to be guilty of adultery.[40] He would have been aware of the aforementioned punishment for such a betrayal and we can assume he considered it when deciding to break the engagement quietly. It is not unreasonable to suggest Joseph was concerned about subjecting both woman and child to probable death. As a godly man, Joseph probably knew of Abraham’s wife Sarah’s miraculous conception. He may have entertained the possibility Mary was somehow miraculously innocent and therefore was not willing to bring public shame upon a potentially blameless. Moreover, and for the most part unaddressed by biblical interpreters, Joseph’s own family would also have been severely shamed. By keeping the divorce quiet he may have been able to downplay the scandal, thereby protecting his own family from further shame.
 |
| http://www.biblical-quotes-and-poems.com/ |
After Joseph’s decision has been made, we learn he has a dream in which the Lord tells him the child was conceived by the Holy Spirit and he should therefore have no fear in going ahead with his marriage to Mary. It is here where we really begin to appreciate Joseph’s obedience to God. Matthew explains how when Joseph awoke he did as the Lord commanded and took Mary home to be his wife. It appears at this point that Joseph is the only person with an explanation for Mary’s pregnancy. Matthew does not indicate whether or not Joseph informs anyone else of this divine knowledge. We can only assume he would have told his family to inform Mary’s family of his willingness to proceed with the marriage. This news would have shocked Joseph’s family who would have desired no further association with Mary, and relieved Mary’s family whose shame would have been lessened.
 |
| http://www.brooklynmuseum.org/opencollection/objects/661/Wedding_of_Mary_and_Joseph |
The day the bridegroom collected the bride from her father’s house and returned with her to his own home, took place right after the year of betrothal. It was a very eventful occasion containing much ritual, sadness and rejoicing.[41] It is unclear how far into their betrothal Mary and Joseph were at the time her pregnancy was discovered. It is also unclear whether Joseph took her back to his home immediately after his dream or whether he waited until the end of the betrothal year. We might assume that Joseph did marry her immediately so as to minimize her shame. It would appear better for Mary to be carrying a child in her husband’s home rather than while still in her father’s. All we can know is that sometime within the remainder of their year Joseph took Mary to his home as his wife.
 |
| http://www.visualbiblealive.com/stock_image.php?id=75236 |
Largely ignored by most commentators is what Mary and Joseph experienced after the wedding. Campbell explains the transition that occurs with Sarakatsan marriage is very difficult.
“…it causes individuals real psychological distress when a girl at her marriage must abandon the family of her birth or when another family must receive a strange woman into the circle of their close and exclusive relationships.”[42]
What is more, upon her arrival into her husband’s household, “the new bride is subordinate to all other adults in the extended family."[43] She is welcomed as a genuine member of the family but she is required to learn their ways through hard work, modesty, and obedience. Not until she has her own children is she relieved of such inferior status. Knowing this about the Sarakatsan, we can presume Mary found the transition into Joseph’s family very difficult. She may have faced even harsher treatment seeing as she shamed her new family before even meeting them. To top it all off, Matthew tells us that Mary and Joseph refrained from intercourse until after the child was born. This is extremely significant in regards to their family’s honour. It was customary to display the bloodied bed sheets from the wedding night to prove the bride’s virginity. By deciding to postpone intercourse until after the child’s birth, Mary and Joseph surrender their only opportunity to prove Mary’s virginity and the miraculous conception. This decision demonstrates their willingness to sacrifice honour in order to obey God. Additionally, Mary would have to trust Joseph because without proof of her virginity she would have nothing with which to vindicate or protect herself should he reject her later.[44] Finally, we learn that Joseph names the child Jesus. By naming the child, Joseph accepts it into his royally descended household as his own son.[45]
 |
| http://daughtersoflight.wordpress.com/ |
In his gospel, Matthew intentionally constructs shameful circumstances, such as Mary’s premarital pregnancy, so as to provide God with an obstacle to overcome. A child conceived during betrothal would have shamed, if not totally destroyed the honour of, both families. It is unlikely the child would survive as the mother faced the risk of being killed. If they did survive, the child would suffer throughout life from its shameful origins. As Campbell explains, “A mother who is thought to have lost her virginity before marriage...infects her children with the taint of her dishonour…”[46]
 |
| http://holly6669666.deviantart.com/art/Good-and-Evil-Life-and-Death-118659792 |
By accepting Mary and the child, Joseph acts against his culture and saves their lives thereby allowing Jesus to be born with honour.[47] Additionally, Matthew associates Mary with the four women in the genealogy whose shameful behaviour is justified instead of punished. These five women are thus viewed as righteous because of their notable contributions to the Jewish people.[48] Having interpreted this passage using social scientific criticism we can appreciate how Matthew uses Mary and Joseph’s behaviour to demonstrate how obedience to God, though it may require counter-cultural sacrifices, can bring godly honour from human shame. With the birth narrative, Matthew also sets the tone for the major theme of unexpected life coming from expected death, which is woven throughout his gospel and finds its climax in the Passion narrative.[49] A child, which society would have killed before it was born, is saved by a just man only to be killed later in life by the very same society, which he then saves through his death. Thus, Matthew frames his gospel with the birth narrative and the Passion; both shameful circumstances from which Jesus emerges with life and honour.
Bibliography al-Khayyat, Sana. (1999) Honour and Shame: Woman in Modern Iraq. London: Saqi Books. cited in Marohl (2008) pg 5
Aquinas, Thomas (1842) Catena Aurea: Commentary on the Four Gospels, Collected out of the Works of the Fathers. Volume 1. St. Matthew. Translated by John Henry Parker in Oxford. London: J. G. F. and J. Rivington.
Antonelli, Alessandra. (1998) “Crimes Not Stories.” Palestine Report. Cited in Marohl (2008) pg 30
Ardener, Shirley. (1993) Women and Space: Ground Rules and Social Maps. Volume 5 of Cross-Cultural Perspective on Women. 2nd Revised Edition. New York and Oxford: Berg Publishers Limited. (Google Books)
Brandes, Stanley. (1987) “Reflections on Honor and Shame in the Mediterranean.” In Honor and Shame in the Unity of the Mediterranean, edited by David D. Gilmore, 121-34. Washington DC: American Anthropology Association. Cited in Marohl (2008) pg 4
Broadus, John A. (1990) Commentary on Matthew. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Kregel Classics.
Bruner, Frederick Dale. (2004) Matthew: The Christbook, Matthew 1-12. Revised and Expanded Edition. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. (Google Books)
Campbell, J.K. (1964) Honour, Family, and Patronage: A Study of Institutions and Moral Values in a Greek Mountain Community. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Clarke, Howard W. (2003) The Gospel of Matthew and its readers; a historical introduction to the First Gospel. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press.
Deiss, Lucien and Madeleine Beaumont. (1996) Joseph, Mary, Jesus. Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press.
Esler, Philip F. (1994) The First Christians in Their Social Worlds: Social-Scientific Approaches to New Testament Interpretation. London and New York: Routledge.
France, R.T. (1985) The Gospel according to Matthew: an introduction and commentary. Volume 1 of the Tyndale New Testament commentaries. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B Eerdmans Publishing Company. (Google Books)
Freed, Edwin D. (2001) The Stories of Jesus’ birth; a critical introduction. Volume 72 of The Biblical Seminar. Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press Ltd.
Gundry, Robert Horton. (1994) Matthew: a commentary on his handbook for a mixed church under persecution. Second Edition. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.
Instone-Brewer, David. (2002) Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible; The Social and Literary Context. Grand Rapids and Cambridge: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
Keener, Craig S. (1999) A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew. Grand Rapids, MI and Cambridge: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. (Google Books)
Kroeger, Catherine Clark. And Evans, Mary J., ed. (2002) The IVP Women’s Bible Commentary: An indispensable resourse for all who want to view Scripture through different eyes. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press. (Google Books)
Malina, Bruce J. (2001) The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology. Third edition, revised and expanded. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.
Marohl, Matthew J. (2008) Joseph’s Dilemma: ‘Honor Killing’ in the Birth Narrative of Matthew. Eugene, Oregon: Cascade Books.
Neyrey, Jerome H. (1998) Honor and shame in the Gospel of Matthew. Louisville, KT: Westminster John Knox Press. (Google Books)
Rohrbaugh, Richard L. (1991) 'The Pre-Industrial City in Luke-Acts: Urban Social Relations', in Neyrey 1991: 125-49. -- (2010) 'Honor: Core Value in the Biblical World', in Neufeld and DeMaris 2010: 109-25.
Ruggi, Suzanne. (1998) “Honor Killings in Palestine: Commodifying Honor in Female Sexuality.” Middle East Report 28. Cited in Marohl (2008) pg 17
Satlow, Michael L. (2001) Jewish Marriage in Antiquity. Princton: Princeton University Press. (Google Books)
Sciama, Lidia. ‘The Problem of Privacy in Mediterranean Anthropology’, in Ardener 1993: 87-111
Souad. (2004) Burned Alive: The Shocking, True Story of One Woman’s Escape from an ‘Honour’ Killing. With Marie-Therese Cuny. London: Bantam. Cited in Marohl, Matthew J. (2008) Joseph’s Dilemma: ‘Honor Killing’ in the Birth Narrative of Matthew. Eugene, Oregon: Cascade Books. pg 9
Walcot, Peter. (1970) Greek peasants, ancient and modern: a comparison of social and moral values. Kent: W &J Mackay & Co Ltd.
Williams, Ritva. An Illustration of Historical Inquiry: Histories of Jesus and Matthew 1:1-25. In Handbook of early Christianity: social science approaches. Blasi, Anthony J., Turcotte, Paul-André, and Duhaime, Jean. (Eds.) (2002) Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. pg 105-124 (Google Books)
Footnotes
[1] Kroeger, 522
[2] Freed, 46-48
[3] Keener, 91-95
[4] Williams, 113
[5] Keener, 90
[6] Diess, 25
[7] Kroeger, 522
[8] Keener, 91-95
[9] Sciama, 95
[10] Malina, 46-47
[11] Esler, 21-32
[12] Malina, 47
[13] Freed, 47
[14] Deuteronomy 22:23f
[15] Keener, 91
[16] Leviticus 20:10
[17] Marohl, 14
[18] Marohl critiques Luz’s evidence and demonstrates the law, though not applicable to some members of ancient society, would still have applied to Mary. (Marohl, 28)
[19] Instone-Brewer, 27
[20] Marohl, 37
[21] Suad Abu Daya quoted by Antonelli cited in Marohl, 30
[22] J. K. Campbell, 199
[23] Keener, 91-92
[24] Brandes cited in Marohl, 4; Marohl, 11; Sharif Kanaana quoted by Ruggi cited in Marohl, 17
[25] al-Khayyat cited in Marohl, 5
[26] Campbell, 152
[27] Keener, 92
[28] Keener, 91
[29] Marohl, 37
[30] Philo, Spec 3.76 cited in Williams 114
[31] Williams, 114
[32] Broadus, 9
[33] Keener, 93-94
[34] Genesis 38
[35] Kroeger, 522
[36] 1 Samuel 24:17 is an example of how a just man repays evil with good.
[37] Keener, 94-95
[38] Esler, 34
[39] Freed, 48
[40] Marohl, 37
[41] Esler, 33
[42] Campbell, 59
[43] Campbell, 64
[44] Keener, 89
[45] Williams, 117
[46] Campbell, 169
[47] Williams, 122
[48] Freed, 37
[49] Marohl, 63-71
