User:SimonP/temp
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The opening of Matthew's Gospel fits with the theory of Markan priority. Scholars believe that the author of Matthew took Mark 1:1 "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;" and replaced "the son of God" with the beginning of the genealogy.
The phrase "book of the genealogy" or biblos geneseos has several possible meanings. Most commonly it is seen as only referring to the list of ancestors that immediately follows, and most scholars agree that this interpretation is the most logical. However the phrase could also be translated more generally as "the book of coming" and could thus refer to the entire Gospel. Such opening phrases summarizing an entire work were common in an era before books had titles to serve this purpose. Jerome adopted this translation for the Vulgate. Davies and Allison consider this to be the most likely meaning. "book of the genealogy" is not a typical phrasing to introduce a genealogy. This phrase does appear in Genesis 5:1, but there it introduces a list of decedents rather than ancestors. The phrase also appears in Genesis 2:4, and there is has no relation to genealogies. Both 2:4 and 5:1 introduce elements of the creation story, and Davies and Allison feel it is likely that this verse is linked into the notion of a new genesis. They also point out that nowhere else in the New Testament does book refer to anything or than an entire work. Alternatively the phrase could have been deliberately created to serve the dual purpose of both introducing the entire work and the genealogy.
Brown mentions a third translation is "the book of the genesis brought about by Jesus" implying that it discusses the recreation of the world by Jesus. This stretches the grammar considerably, however. The term genesis was at the time the gospel was written already attached as the name of the first part of the Torah, so the use of the term here could be a deliberate reference. Geneseos also appears at Matthew 1:18, but there it is almost always translated as birth.
The now-common phrase "Jesus Christ" is used by the author of Matthew. What exactly is meant by this is much discussed. Christ, the Greek word for messiah, literally translates as "the anointed one". In modern times both titles apply exclusively to Jesus, but Matthew is not specific as to whether Jesus is the Christ or merely a Christ. In fact the form Matthew uses indicates that the word Christ is being used as a title, which is unusual as this is a usage only adopted some time after the death of Christ. Elsewhere Matthew uses "the Christ".
Davies and Allison note that both "son of David" and "son of Abraham" were titles in use in that era. "Son of David" was a common messianic title, while "son of Abraham" was an expression that could refer to any Jew. According to Brown some have theorized that David's name comes before Abraham's as the author of Matthew is trying to emphasize Jesus' Davidic ancestry. Brown doubts this, feeling the arrangement is merely to provide a lead into the genealogy that follows. Gundry states that the structure of this passage attempts to portray Jesus as the culmination of the Old Testament genealogies.
Why the author of Matthew chooses to immediately begin his Gospel with a lengthy genealogy is an important question. As Fowler notes, the long list of names is of little interest to modern readers and potentially discourages people from reading further in the Gospel. Many editions of the Gospel essentially present it as beginning at Matthew 1:18 for this very reason. This disinterest would not have been true, however, to the Jewish audience the Gospel was directed to. Lineage and descent were of great importance in Jewish society of the time, and a descent from David and Abraham was crucial to accepting Jesus as the Messiah. The names, at least in the first part of the genealogy, would have been well known to the readers. Some feminist scholars have posited that the prominent position of the genealogy is also an implicit reinforcement of the patriarchal nature of society. They argue that beginning the Gospel with a long string of "X father of Y" clearly exemplifies the masculine domination. Fowler argues that the genealogy also serves to immediately humanize Jesus, by placing him clearly in the family of men.
The section begins with Abraham who is traditionally regarded as the ancestor of all the families of the Earth. It then runs through the prominent Old Testament figures of Isaac, Jacob, and Judah. This same genealogy is presented in six different places in the Old Testament.
The passage also references Judah's brothers who have no actual place in the genealogy. Gundry contends they are included because the author of Matthew is trying to portray the people of God as a brotherhood. Fowler argues that while Isaac and Jacob's brothers were excluded from the promise of the messiah, all twelve of Judah's brothers were the ancestors of the tribe from which the messiah would come. The inclusion of the brothers is thus a reminder to the readers that it is from this group where the messiah will come.
Davies and Allison note that Isaac birth is a miraculous one according to the Old Testament, and thus there is some symmetry with both the first and last births mention in the genealogy being miraculous ones.
This is the second verse of the genealogy and these are the ancestors of many Old Testament figures. This genealogy matches that given in several other places in the Bible. Fowler notes that the portion from this verse to Matthew 1:6 seems to be based on Ruth 4:18-22. It covers a period before and during the Egyptian captivity. The genealogy runs through Judah, Perez, Hezron, and Aram. Nothing is known of Hezron or Aram, other than their appearances in the various genealogies. Perez, and his brother and mother, are important figures in the Old Testament.
The most notable part of the genealogy, and where it diverts from others recounting this lineage, is the mention of Zerah, brother of Perez, and their mother Tamar. These two figures are unconnected to the genealogy, but are mentioned nonetheless. Tamar, the wife of Judah, is the first of four women that are added to Matthew's genealogy. 1:5 mentions Ruth and Rahab while in 1:6 Bathsheba, wife of Solomon, is mentioned indirectly. This is unusual because in this period women were not generally included in genealogies. The women do not appear in the genealogy in Luke 3. Fowler states that the addition of the female names to the genealogy was not only unprecedented, but that the very idea would have been "abhorent" to the traditional authorities. Scholars have proposed several explanations for their inclusion.
There is a fifth prominent woman in Matthew 1, the Virgin Mary. Albright and Mann support the popular theory that the four other women are mentioned to highlight the important roles women have played in the past and also to portray Mary, the Mother of Jesus, as the equal of these well-known figures. Brown feels these women are added to show that God often works through women and also that his actions are not always in keeping with standard mores. Feminist scholars such as Levine support the idea that the addition of women to the male dominated genealogy demonstrates that women have an important role and serves to undermine the patriarchal message of the long list of male begat male.
St. Jerome is the first to have noted the sinful nature of the women. Tamar was an adulteress and Rahab was a harlot. There were many greater, more notable, and more virtuous women in Jewish history that are not mentioned. Jerome felt Matthew includes these women to illustrate how pressing the need for Jesus is at the time. Gundry agrees that all four have a dubious reputation and sees their addition to the genealogy as an attempt to show that the great leaders of Jewish history have origins as undignified as those of Jesus. Fowler disagrees, arguing that under any circumstances the author of Matthew would have been unlikley to link the Virgin Mary to harlots and adulterers.
Another important link between the four, first noted by St. John Chrysostom, is their foreignness. All four women were traditionally regarded as non-Jewish. Rahab was a Canaanite as most likely was Tamar. Ruth was a Moabite and Bathsheba is perhaps a Hittite and was certainly married to one. Bathsheba's foreignness is emphasized in Matthew 1:6 as she is referred to not by her name, but as "the wife of Uriah". Uriah being Uriah the Hittite, a well-known foreigner. The inclusion of the four foreign women is often interpreted as showing that Jesus' is not only meant as the saviour of the Jews, but of the Gentiles as well.
Both Zerah and Tamar are mentioned prominently in the Septuagint. The author of Matthew also uses the Septuagint spellings of their names. This is important evidence that Matthew uses the Septuagint as the main source for his genealogy.
This genealogy matches that given in several other places in the Bible, including Luke 3:33. It covers the period when the Jews were of the captivity in Egypt up to near or after the Exodus. The passage carries the genealogy through Aram, Amminadab, Nahshon, and Salmon of which only Nahshon, the brother-in-law of Aaron, is a notable figure. According to the Old Testament it was to Nashon that Moses gave control of the tribe of Judah, and it is thus from him that many of the kings of Judah are descended.
Brown notes that in this passage the genealogy seems to be moving much too quickly. Herezon, the father of Aram, is mentioned in Genesis 46:12 in connection with Joseph going to Egypt. Amminadab, whom Matthew states is his grandson, is mentioned in Numbers 1:7 in connection with the post Exodus wandering in the desert. This leaves only three generations covering the period in Egypt that reportedly lasted several centuries.
This genealogy matches that given in several other places in the Bible, including Luke 3:32. It covers the period after the Exodus to around the founding of the Kingdom of Israel. The passage carries the genealogy through Salmon, Boaz, Obed, and Jesse of which only Boaz is notable. It also mentions two women, Rahab and Ruth, both of whom are prominent Old Testament figures. For a full discussion of the women mentioned in Matthew's genealogy see Matthew 1:3.
Albright and Mann note that the author of Matthew spells Rahab's name as Rachab, a departure from the LXX spelling Matthew usually uses. The Rachab form also appears in the works of Josephus. They speculate that this indicates a change in pronunciation during this period. Another problem, pointed out by Brown, is that Rahab's position in this verse does not meet other traditions. No other source has her marrying Salmon and giving birth to Boaz. Jewish tradition has her as the wife of Joshua, and thus, also in a different time period.
This verse marks the end of the first third of the genealogy as the list and the transition from the list of descendents of Abraham to the list of the kings of Judah. This changed is marked by the reference to "David the king." Gundry also sees the reference to "David the king", an Old Testament turn of phrase, as an attempt to present him as a prototype for "Jesus the king."
The genealogy of Luke 3 and Matthew diverge at this point. Previously the lists from Abraham to David were identical. While Matthew continues to Solomon Luke links to David's less well known son Nathan. One explanation for this divergence is that Luke's genealogy is of Mary's father Heli rather than of Joseph. Gundry argues that the divergence is because while Luke was following Joseph's biological ancestry Matthew is listing Jesus' predecessors as the leader of the Jewish people.
The wife of Uriah the Hittite mentioned as the mother of Solomon is Bathsheba. She is one of four women that are included in the genealogy. Mentioning her by only her first husband's name emphasizes both her foreigners and the adulterous nature of her union with David. See Matthew 1:3 for a full discussion of the inclusion of women in the genealogy.
This part of the list coincides with the list of the Kings of Judah that is present in a number of other parts of the Bible. Unlike other parts of Matthew's genealogy this list is fully in keeping with the other sources. The first listed is King Solomon of Israel who is said to have reigned c.962 BC to c.922 BC. The genealogy then follows that of the kings of Judah beginning with Rehoboam whose reign W.F. Albright dates from 922 BC to 915 BC. Rehoboam's son Abijah ruled from his father's death for two years and his son Asa of Judah ruled from 913 BC to 873 BC. Rehoboam is most noted for presiding over the break up of his kingdom and a civil war between the tribes of Israel. His son Asia had a brief and unsuccessful reign. Asa's long reign was more successful.
Gundry notes that the author of Matthew adds a "φ" to Asa's name. Gundry believes this is an attempt to link the king to Asaph, to whom Psalm 78 is attributed. Psalm 78 contains important messianic prophecies. Brown, and most other scholars feel this is more likely an error than a scheme and most translators of the Bible "correct" Matthew in this verse. Who made the error is uncertain. The author of Matthew could have been working from an incorrect source, he could have made the error himself, or an early copier of the Gospel could have added the letter.
This first part this verse coincides with the list of the Kings of Judah that is present in a number of other parts of the Bible. According to W.F. Albright Asa of Judah ruled from 913 BC to 873 BC. His son Jehoshaphat ruled from 873 BC to 849 BC. His son Jehoram ruled from Jehoshaphat's death until 842 BC. However the other lists have Jehoram's son being Ahaziah while Uzziah is a monarch who comes several generations later.
This means that Matthew's genealogy skips Ahaziah, Athaliah, Jehoash, and Amaziah. Those who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible contend that the genealogy was never meant to be complete and the author of Matthew deliberately dropped those who were not needed from the list. Simply dropping unnecessary figures from genealogies was a common practice, and this is also done in several points in the New Testament. One theory is that they were dropped because of their wickedness, but the even more unpleasant Manasseh is left in the list. All four were also murdered, but so was Amon, who also remains in place. Their reigns were also relatively short, but again there are other monarchs with shorter reigns included.
Gundry supports the popular theory that these monarchs were left out because they were all descendants of Ahab, through his daughter Athaliah. Ahab's decedents were said to have been punished for four generations. Gundry also believes their removal was because the author was trying to divide the genealogy into the three lists of fourteen as mentioned in Matthew 1:17.
Albright and Mann have a different theory. They believe that the author, or a later scribe, confused Achaziah and Uzziah due to the similarity of the two rulers' names. In a common scribal transcription error, known as homoioteleuton, Uzziah was given Achaziah's position as the son of Jehoram but remained as father of Jotham. Under this theory the triple-fourteen parallelism was only created after this error appeared. Thus the comment in Matthew 1:17 would have had to have been added by a later editor and not the original author. Fowler rejects this view, arguing that the error was so obvious when checked against the Old Testament that if the change would quickly have been reversed if it were not deliberate.
This part of the list of Jesus' ancestry coincides with the list of the Kings of Judah that is present in a number of other parts of the Bible. Unlike other parts of Matthew's genealogy this list is fully in keeping with the other sources. Ozias, King of Judah (809 BC - 759 BC) (Amos 1:1) . According to W.F. Albright, Jotham ruled from 742 BC until 735 BC and his son Ahaz ruled from his death until 715 BC. Ahaz's son Hezekiah ruled from 715 BC to 687 BC.
This part of the list coincides with the list of the Kings of Judah in a number of other parts of the Bible. Unlike other parts of Matthew's genealogy this list is fully in keeping with the other sources. According to W.F. Albright Hezekiah ruled from 715 BC to 687 BC. His son Manasseh ruled from his father's death until 642 BC, while Manasseh's son Amon ruled from 642 BC to 640 BC. Josiah ruled from 640 BC to 609 BC. Manasseh was widely regarded as the most wicked king of Judah, so why he appears in this genealogy when other discreditable ancestors have been left out is an important question. Davies and Allison not that the portrayal of Manasseh in the literature of the period was divided. While some sources represented him as a purely wicked figure, others represented him as man who eventually found repentance for his deeds. The author of Matthew may have been more acquainted with the later school and thus left him in.
The biblical scholar Robert H. Gundry points out that the author of Matthew actually wrote Amos, rather than Amon. He argues the name might have been changed to link the minor prophet Amos who made predictions concerning the messiah.
This portion is part of the listing of the Kings of Judah and covers the period from the mid-seventh century BC to the beginning of the Babylonian Captivity. Josiah was a prominent monarch who reigned from 641 BC or 640 BC until 609 BC. Jeconiah came two monarchs later and is best known for being defeated and brought with his people in captivity in Babylon around 598 BC.
The main question about this passage is what it means by the word brothers. According to Chronicles Jeconiah only had one brother, so the plural does not make sense. A common view is to see Jeconiah's name in this section as an error. Jeconiah, who is already listed in Matthew 1:12, sometimes has his name written as Jehoiachin making it possible that the author of Matthew or a later scribe confused him with his father Jehoiakim. In Irenaeus' Latin version of this text Jehoiakim name appears, but this is the only piece of textual evidence for this theory. All other ancient versions leave him out. Also in Iraneus the brothers are still associated with Jeconiah. This theory would also address a number of other problems. Josiah is believed to be Jeconiah's grandfather rather than father, and having the listing of Jeconiah as two separate people would correct the seeming error in Matthew 1:17. Jehoiakim had a number of brothers and these are mentioned in 1 Chronicles 3:15. Albright and Mann believe the author of Matthew mentioned the brothers, despite there having nothing to do with Jesus' genealogy, because they are prominently mentioned in Chronicles.
Gundry disagrees with this view. The Septuagint from which Matthew seems to have got his spelling uses the spellings Jeconiah, making it less likely that the name would be confused with Jehoiakim. Moreover the repeating of Jeconiah's name in the next verse matches the repeating of names that occurs throughout the genealogy. Gundry believes that brothers refers to the Jewish people in general who were brought to Babylon with their king, not the biological brothers of Jeconiah. Fowler suggests that brothers might have simply meant family, and the word was included since Jeconiah's family did have an important role in the Old Testament reports.
Fowler believes that the omission was explicitly intended. He argues that the "at the time of the exile to Babylon" makes it clear that this is not simply a genealogy, but also a quick summary of Jewish history. As such leaving out names would simply be part of the attempt to compress thousands of yeas of history into seventeen verses. The story of the Babylonian captivity is a long and complicated one, with many figures involved. Fowler argues that the word brothers was included to allow Matthew to simply skip over this tangled period without being diverted from his task by mentioning the actual names.
Jeconiah was a king of Judah, the last of these kings to be included among Joseph's ancestors. He was captured and brought to Babylon along with many of his subjects beginning the Babylonian Captivity. His son Shealtiel was born in Babylon, as was Shealtiel's son Zerubbabel. It was Zerubbabel who led the Jews out of exile in Assyria and he plays a prominent role in the Book of Ezra.
Zerubbabel and Shealtiel are also listed in the genealogy of Luke 3:27. However, in Luke Shealtiel is not listed as the son of Jechoniah but rather of Neri. A number of explanations have been advanced to explain this. Gundry believes that Luke gives the actual physical genealogy while Matthew is presenting the ceremonial one. Thus Neri was Shealtiel's natural father, but it was from Jeconiah which came the leadership of the Jewish people. This may link in with the prophesy of Jeremiah 36:30, which states that Jehoiakim's children would never againsit on the throne of David becuase of his sins. By having Shealtiel be the biological son of Neri, and only the adopted son of Jechoniah, this prohibition is avvoided.
This is further complicated as 1 Chronicles 3:19 states that the father of Zerubbabel was Pedaiah, a brother of Shealtiel. Zerubbabel, which means "born in Babylon" was a common name and it is entirely possible that Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel had a cousin also named Zerubbabel.
Gundry notes that the opening line "after the exile to Babylon" clearly does not refer to this verse alone. Jeconiah and Shealtiel were in no way after the exile. Rather the first line is an introduction to this last third of the biography that covers the period from the captivity to the birth of Jesus.
Zerubbabel is reported to have had a number of children, but no other source has one named Abiud. The Eliakim listed is not to be confused with Jehoiakim, who is sometimes referred to as Eliakim. Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel is also listed in the genealogy of Jesus that appears in Luke 3:27. However, in Luke Zerubbabel's offspring is named Rhesa whose son is Joanan and grandson Joda. And the lists remain different from that point on. There have been several theories advanced to explain this seeming contradiction:
- Luke's genealogy is that of Mary's father Heli. While Matthew's is of Joseph.
- There were two separate Zerubbabels who had a father named Shealtiel
- Zerubbabel had two sons and for an unexplained reason Matthew and Luke picked different ones to trace the ancestry of Jesus.
- Rhesa and Abiud are the same person, but are known by two different names, as are their descendents.
- While Luke knew what he was talking about the author of Matthew fabricated this part.
Those listed in this part of the genealogy lived in the period after the Babylonian Captivity and six generation before Jesus. Traditionally Zerubbabel's period is believed to have started in 539 BC, while Azor, the last listed, is said to have died in 372 BC. This is a long period of time for just four people and many scholars feel an accurate list would be longer. Luke's genealogy has far more names covering this period. That this part of the genealogy is usually lacking in papponymic naming leads Albright and Mann to speculate that over the generations the repeating and similar names were merged.
Of the people listed in this passage only Zerubbabel is well known. He plays an important role in the Book of Ezra and appears elsewhere in the Bible. It is at this point that the Old Testament histories conclude, and the other three figures listed here are only known from this genealogy. It is thus unknown where the rest of the genealogy comes from. As noted in Josephus prominent Jewish families did keep detailed genealogical records, and the author of Matthew may have had access to some of these. Each local government also kept genealogical records to ensure proper rules of inheritance were followed.
Gundry, by contrast, believes that the rest of the geneaology is a creative fiction by the author of Matthew to fill in the gap between the end of the OT sources and Jesus' birth. He argues that the reason Abiud, Eliakim, and Azor are not known outside this passage is because the author of Matthew made them up. To Gundry once the list moves away from the accepted genealogy of Jewish leaders it is fabricated until it reaches the known territory of Joseph's grandfather. Gundry does not imagine that Matthew has made up the list entirely. The names listed do fit the period of history. Rather Gundry sees the author, who had been copying the list of kings from the Old Testament, turn to that source for the names of Joseph's ancestors. Specifically he believes the names are all drawn from 1 Chronicles, but were modified to not make the copying obvious.
Abihu was one of the priests whose name means "son of Judah." According to Gundry the author of Matthew liked the meaning behind this name and it was slight modified to become Abiud. Eliezer succeeded Abihu and his name is changed to Eliakim by the author of Matthew, linking him to the Eliakim mentioned in Isaiah 22 and to Jehoiakim, a king that was left out of the earlier narrative. Azariah, another priest had his name shortened to create the name Azor.
This part of the genealogy falls in the period after the Babylonian captivity. All four people mentioned here are only mentioned in this passage and are not mentioned in any other source. They are absent from the genealogy in Luke 3.
Gundry contents that Matthew did not know Jesus' ancestors during the period and instead essentially made it up. He was copying the early list from the Old Testament and Gundry sees the author of Matthew turning to this same source for some plausible ancient names but they were modified to make the copying less obvious.
He sees the name Azor being a shortened from the priest Azariah. Mentioned just above Zariah is Zadok a priest from King David's time. Matthew adds him as the next name. Zadok's son is Achimaas and this is shortened to Achim. Eliezer is also a figure from 1 Chronicles and this name is turned into Eliud.
The name Zadok appears twice in the Old Testament, once for the prominent priest of King David and once as an incidental figure mentioned as the grandfather of Jotham, an individual who was himself mentioned at Matthew 1:9. While it is almost certainly a coincidence, Davies and Allison also note that the founder of the Qumran community was also named Zadok. This figure lived sometime between 240 B.C. and 170 B.C., and is thus in approximately the correct time period.
This section goes through Joseph's great-grandfather Eleazar, grandfather Matthan, and father Jacob. None of these figures are mentioned anywhere other than in Matthew and nothing else is known about them. As with most of the later section of Matthew's genealogy it conflicts with that given in Luke 3. There is some similarity in this passage Matthew gives Joseph's grandfather as Matthan and Luke as Matthat, the other names, however, are wholly different. Eleazar was a common Old Testament name, appearing many times in that work.
Gundry, who is highly skeptical of the earlier parts of Matthew's genealogy, believes that these later figures are likely accurate as it is unlikely no one would know who Joseph's father and grandfather were. Even if the author of Matthew did not known their names it is unlikely he would risk being creative as he could be fairly sure that somebody would spot his error. Gundry posits that Eleazar is the last fictional creation and that Matthan and Jacob were real people.
This section begins with Jacob, Joseph's father, a figure about which nothing else is known. This also conflicts with Luke 3:23 that states that Heli is Joseph's father. There have been a number of explanations to explain this discrepancy, that Heli is actually Joseph's father in law, that Jacob is Joseph's birth father but after a Levirate marriage Heli became his legal father. These suggestions are not impossible, but there is no evidence for any of them and they are generally only believed by those committed to Biblical inerrancy.
The father of the Old Testament's Joseph is also named Jacob, and Davies and Allison note that this could mean that the author of Matthew is trying to link Joseph with his OT namesake. There are several other links in the text, both Joseph's are spoken to in dreams, both travel to Egypt, and both have similarly righteous personalities.
Matthew breaks with the pattern that has held throughout the genealogy, Joseph did not beget Jesus, but was simply the husband of the woman who did, implying the Virgin Birth. In the original Greek, the word translated as whom is unambiguously feminine. The shift to the passive voice also symbolizes the Virgin Birth.
Brown notes that this verse has attracted considerable scholarly attention because unusually the ancient sources show several different versions of it. Brown translates the Codex Koridethi having:
- Jacob was the father of Joseph,
- to whom the betrothed virgin
- Mary bore Jesus, called the Christ
The Old Syriac Sinacticus has
- Jacob was the father of Joseph,
- to whom the virgin Mary was
- betrothed, was the father of Jesus
Some scholars see these versions as evidence against the doctrine of the Virgin Birth, especially the OSS version that states that Joseph was Jesus' father. However, both alternate versions actually add the word virgin. Another theory is that the original version of Matthew simply continued the earlier pattern and had "and Joseph was the father of Jesus," without necessarily meaning biological parentage. However the ease of misinterpretation led later transcribers to try to make the verse more clear, with each coming up with their own version.
Brown himself feels that the alternate versions have nothing to do with the Virgin Birth. Rather he argues that an important issue at the time these later copies were made was that of the perpetual virginity of Mary and that both the Koridethi and OSS versions were attempts to do away with the word husband.
Another issue raised by this verse is that if Joseph is no more than the husband of Jesus' mother then why did Matthew devote the last fourteen verses relating his genealogy? While Matthew makes clear that although Joseph was not Jesus' biological father, he was his legal father, and at the time legal kinship was generally considered more important than biological descent. Thus Jesus could properly be a member of the House of David despite only being an adopted son.
Scholars see a number of reasons for this summary verse. The dividing of the genealogy in three groups of fourteen helps for the memorization of the list. The dividing Jewish history into three eras, with David at the end of one period and the exile to Babylon the end of the second places the birth of Jesus on an equal footing with these earlier major events. The division also makes it seem as though this is the right time for another major event. The numbers may be linked to Daniel 9:24-27, which states that seven weeks of years, or 490 years, would pass between the restoration of Jerusalem and the coming of the messiah. Since generations were commonly placed at 35 years, this means exactly 14 generations. Davies and Allison also note that this might be linked to the lunar calendar. The lunar month is 28 days, 14 days of waxing and 14 days of waning. Thus the first grouping could be the initial waxing to David, the next fourteen the waning to the Babylonian captivity and the last period the waxing towards Jesus. Calculations based on this verse led Joachim of Fiore to predict the Second Coming would occur in the thirteenth century.
The number 14 is itself important. It is twice 7, which was considered a holy number. David's name, when turned into numbers, adds up to fourteen. 3 groups of 14 is the same of 6 groups of 7. Davies and Allison mention a theory that the first six periods reflect the first six days of the week, with Jesus begins the seventh day, that of the eternal Sabath.
However, there are some complications with this passage. There are only 41 names listed, one would expect 14 x 3 or 42. This leaves one of the divisions a member short.
|
A number of explanations have been advanced to explain this. The most straightforward is that the author of Matthew simply miscounted. Other such seeming errors in mathematics are found in the Old Testament, and also in other works of this period. Another view, which would preserve the inerrency of the Bible, is that David's name should appear twice just as it is mentioned twice in the verse. By this count he is both one of the fourteen from "Abraham to David" and also one of the fourteen from "David to the exile to Babylon." The main problem with this is that it would also suggest that since the exile to Babylon is mentioned twice the man at this time, Jeconiah, should also appear twice. Other theories that have been advanced include that Mary counts as one of the 14 or that Jeconiah legally counts as two separate people, one as king the other as dethroned civilian.
An explanation that scholars today find more probable is that the problem lies in Matthew 1:11. Almost all other sources report that a king named Jehoiakim was between Josiah and Jeconiah. Many scholars feel it is likely that Jeconiah, whose name can be spelt Jehoiachin, was confused with his father and they were merged into one person. Thus the error was one by a later transcriber.
However there are several other people who were left out of the genealogy. Matthew 1:8 skips over Ahaziah, Athaliah, Jehoash, and Amaziah, two of whom were kings of Israel and all are well documented by other sources. Begat can also mean grandfather of and skipping unimportant generations is not uncommon in ancient genealogies. See Matthew 1:8 for a full discussion on why these four may have been left out. It is, however, somewhat duplicitous to claim that there were fourteen generations when in fact there were eighteen. Fowler argues that this verse is not in error, as it is not a description of the actual genealogy, but simply of the list that was presented in the Gospel. Fowler believes that the author of Matthew had good reason to drop the names he did and to skip unnecessary ancestors. Fowler sees instructions in this verse are to aid in the memorization of Matthew's version of the genealogy, not the historical list of decedents. By tradition the first period from Abraham to David always had fourteen names, so the author of Matthew simply cut unneeded names from the other two sections to create an easily memorized triple structure.
A transcriber skipping similar names in a list is a common error known as homoioteleuton. Some scholars feel that the original author of Matthew probably had the list correct, and that a later scribe erased the four. This theory implies that this verse must be a later addition to text, as the 14/14/14 structure only came into being after that error was made.
An added problem is that even with several extra names added there are far too few names for the many centuries this genealogy is meant to cover. The much longer genealogy in Luke 3 is more realistic in this regard.
The word translated as birth, geneseos, is the same term that is used in Matthew 1:1. English editions invariably give different translations for the two, but the author of Matthew may have been trying to link the two verses with the second geneseos symbolically beginning the second section of the chapter.
The word translated as espoused, engaged, or most often betrothed refers to a specific institution of the period very different from the modern idea of an engagement. This period occurred after the main marriage ceremony had taken place and the marriage contracts had been signed. Dissolution thus required a formal divorce or the death of one partner. In general the betrothal ceremony took place when the woman was still very young, generally around age twelve or thirteen. After the ceremony she would remain in their father's house for around a year, and this period is what is referred to in this verse.
The second stage of the marriage was for the husband to take his bride into his own home. Most scholars believe this is what the phrase "coming together" means in this verse. It is not thought to be a euphemism for sexual relations, even though it could be interpreted in this way. Only after the bride moved into her husband's house would the marriage be consummated. In Judea sexual relations during the betrothal were not unheard of. In Galilee, however, much stricter conventions prevailed. Any infidelity with an outside partner during the betrothal period was considered adultery, and punished as such under Mosaic Law. Thus when Mary became pregnant she was at a point prior to which she would have had relations with her husband but also a time in which infidelity would be harshly punished, potentially by death.
Matthew does not relate the events surrounding the conception of Jesus, rather he takes the event as having already happened. To Schweizer this signals that Matthew was writing for an audience that was already well aware of story of the Virgin Birth. Schweizer also observers that the author of Matthew seems rather nonplussed by the Virgin Birth. While today modern scientifically oriented Christians find the Virgin Birth one of the more implausible parts of the Gospel, Schweizer believes that attitudes would have been very different at the time Matthew was writing. There were several Virgin Birth stories in the Jewish tradition and the idea of virgin births was generally accepted by the population.
Matthew mentions the paternity of the Holy Ghost very quickly, even before any of the characters in his narrative are aware of this fact. Brown argues that this is because Matthew does not want the reader to consider alternate scenarios as to how Mary could have become pregnant.
Despite the capital letters most editions give the phrase, Matthew does not mean the Holy Ghost as understood in modern theology. The modern notion of the Trinity developed over time. The phrase can be read as either "the holy spirit" or "a holy spirit."
In Greek the term Holy Ghost is gender neutral and in Semitic languages it is female. This dispels any notion of actual copulation, as was traditional between pagan gods and mortal women. Feminist scholar Levine sees much importance in Jesus being the child of a woman and feminine spirit. She sees this as a rejection of the traditional patriarchal model for the family.
[edit] Chi Rho monogram
In Insular Gospel Books (that is those books produced in monasteries Ireland, England and Scotland or on the continent in monasteries founded by Irish missionaries) this verse has an importance not seen in other medieval Gospel Books. In the Vulgate (which was used in these books), the verse reads:
- Christi autem generatio sic erat cum esset desponsata mater eius Maria Ioseph antequam convenirent inventa est in utero habens de Spiritu Sancto
In medieval writing the word Christ was often abbreviated using the Greek letters Chi(X) and Rho (P). The word Christi (of Christ) was then written XPi. The verses Matthew 1:1 through Matthew 1:17 give the genealogy of Christ, with the actual narrative of Christ's birth starting at Matthew 1:18. Insular scribes treated Matthew 1:1-17 as an almost separate work from the rest of Matthew. Insular scribes also started a tradition of giving the opening few words of each of the Gospels an elaborate decorative treatment (see this example from the Lindisfarne Gospels). Accordingly, the Insular scribes gave the opening Chi Rho monogram an increasingly elaborate decoration. This trend culminated in the Book of Kells (see above), where the monogram has taken over the entire page. Although later scribes (such as those of the Carolingian Renaissance) followed the Insular tradition of giving elaborate decorative treatments to the opening words of texts, including the Gospels, they did not follow the tradition of decoration this verse. The presence of a decorated Chi Rho monogram within a manuscript can then be seen as indicative of Insular influence.
That this verse refers to Joseph as Mary's husband does not conflict or mean a change in circumstances from Matthew 1:18, where he is merely her betrothed. The betrothal of the period was a formal arrangement and the couple can reasonably be considered husband and wife while betrothed.
The exact meaning of what the verse means by Joseph being a "just man" is much discussed. The Greek term is dikaios, and it has variously been translated as just, righteous, upright, and of good character. Brown outlines three basic interpretations. Most of the ancient commentators of the Bible interpreted it as meaning that Joseph was law abiding, and as such decided to divorce Mary in keeping with Mosaic Law when he found her pregnant by another. However, his righteousness was tempered by mercy and he thus kept the affair private. A second view, first put forward by Clement of Alexandria, is held by most modern Christians. This view sees Joseph's righteousness, not in his rigid adherence to the laws, but rather in his mercy itself. By this view the decision to ensure Mary was not shamed was not an exception to Joseph's righteousness, but the proof of it. By this view mercy is more righteous that obedience. A third view is based on the idea that Joseph already knew that Mary's child was divinely conceived. This is in keeping with the Gospel of Luke in which Mary is quickly told how she became pregnant. By this interpretation Joseph's righteousness is his great piety that leads him to quickly accept Mary's story and his desire not to intrude with God's plan for his new wife.
Some scholars have tried to do away with the disquieting word divorce in this verse, and most older translations did so. Since Joseph has just been described as righteous having him consider a divorce could imply that divorce is righteous. Especially in the nineteenth century a number of scholars tried to read alternate meanings into the term. One proposal was that it merely meant separate: that the couple would split but that legally they would remain married. However recent discoveries have found that legal avenues for divorce certainly existed at the time in question. One of the clearest pieces of evidence is a divorce record from 111 AD, coincidentally between a couple named Mary and Joseph, that was found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Greek word here translated as divorce is aphiemi, and the only other time it appears is in 1 Corinthians 7:11 where Paul uses it to describe the legal separation of a man and wife. Almost all modern translators today feel that divorce is the best word. Today, versions that do not use the word divorce do so for doctrinaire reasons. This verse also provides one of the main scriptural justification for divorce for churches that accept the practice. Since the marriage in question was never consummated, the divorce Joseph was contemplating does not violate the beliefs of churches, such as the Roman Catholic Church, who reject divorce.
What the verse means by privately is also open to discussion. Rabbinic law from the period gives two methods of divorce for reason of adultery. One was to bring the matter to the village council, which would hold a hearing and, if the allegations were proved, grant a divorce. The second method was to have the evidence presented and approved by two witnesses who would then certify the divorce. By quietly most scholars believe the verse means that Joseph would take the second option. Gundry argues that the witnesses were necessary mainly to prevent a woman denying that the divorce had actually taken place. Gundry believes that by quietly the verse means that even the witnesses would be forgone and the separation would be an entirely private affair.
This is the first of several dream sequences in Matthew. Like the others, but unlike those of the Old Testament, these dreams are very straightforward with no interpretation required.
Albright and Mann note that while the Greek word angelos is commonly translated as angel it could just as well mean a generic divine messenger. The portrayal of an angel in this verse does not match the more common version, which has them appear as men like beings in the physical world.
The angel refers to Joseph as the "son of David". This again emphasizes Jesus' legal Davidic status, the theme of the earlier genealogy.
By "take Mary as your wife" the angel is referring to the second stage of the Jewish marriage ritual that saw the bride move into the husband's house. The Greek, and the content of the rest of the chapter, makes clear that take is not a euphemism for sexual relations.
Why Joseph should "fear" to love Mary is an important question. Gundry asserts that if he suspected Mary of adultery he would not be in fear. Gundry thus feels that this choice of words demonstrates that Joseph knew of the Virgin Birth before the dream and his fear was in angering God by interfering in his divine plan. This is in keeping with Luke where Mary has already been informed for some time before about the nature of her pregnancy.
The same note about the use of the term Holy Spirit applies here as in Matthew 1:18. The author of Matthew refers to a divine spirit in general, not the specific nature of the Holy Ghost of the Trinity which would only be developed some time later.
This verse is the first clear indication of how the author of Matthew sees Jesus. France notes that in the Old Testament only God had the power to absolve sins thus this verse shows that Jesus will be far greater than any of the prophets and other holy men. The traditional view is that this verse clearly shows that the role of the messiah would not be one of national liberator, as most Jews had expected, but rather a spiritual liberator. Generally the word translated as people was used to refer to the Jewish people, but "his people" could also refer to all of humanity.
Carter disagrees with this opinion. He believes that the author of Matthew originally intended this saving to be political. To Carter the sins of bondage, Roman domination, and economic control were just as important as religious and moral sins. He argues that the rest of the infancy narrative is deeply political with its focus on the Kings of Judah and the deeply sinful King Herod. The verse was reinterpreted when the Second Coming failed to occur and liberate Israel from the empire.
Gundry sees this verse as important evidence of how the author of Matthew viewed sin and salvation. Gundry reports that there are two distinct views of sin in the New Testament. Romans 7 presents sin as a malicious external power that induces people to do evil. Matthew differs from this view. The gospel pluralizes the word sin implying that sin is not a universal force. Morevoer referring to their sins presents sin as the fault of the sinner not of an external force. Gundry argues that by the Romans definition deliverance is saving people from the influence of sin, but in Matthew deliverance is rescuing people from the punishment that will inevitably be meted out for sinning.
Hill reports that in Hebrew, Jesus, a common name, means "Yaweh shall save" or simply "saviour". Thus "who shall save his people from their sins" can be considered word play on Jesus' name. However this pun would only have worked in Hebrew and would only have been understood by a Hebrew-speaking audience. Some scholars consider this an important piece of evidence for the Gospel of Matthew having originally been written in Hebrew or Aramaic and only later translated into Greek.
This verse sets up a quote from Isaiah 7:14 that appears in the following verse. Brown notes that in some alternate manuscripts this verse actually contains Isaiah's name. This is the first of many times Matthew uses the phrase "that it might be fulfilled", all of them showing how Jesus is fulfilling the prophecies of the Old Testament. The Gospel of Matthew is far more concerned than the others in proving that Jesus is the messiah spoken of in the Old Testament.
That the name of the prophet in question is not mentioned is generally considered because its irrelevance to Christiology. Warren disagrees with this and argues that it is because the intended audience of the verse would have immediately known which prophet the quote came from and would need no extra information.
The quote is from Isaiah 7:14 with Matthew using the same wording as the Septuagint. The one alteration is that the phrase "they shall name" is changed to "you shall name." This switches the meaning somewhat from Immanuel being a title proclaimed by the people to a name given by Joseph. The author of Matthew still treats the name as more of a title as Joseph actually names his son Jesus. The Masoretic text has the unspecified "and shall name".
There is much debate over the meang of Isaiah 7:14. Most scholars today believe the Hebrew word 'almah, used in Isaiah, would more accurately be translated as young woman rather than virgin. The LXX version of Isaiah and the Gospel of Matthew both use the Greek word parthenos, which unambiguously translates as virgin. For a full discussion of this debate see Virgin Birth.
Scholars have other concerns with Matthew's reference to Isaiah. France, for instance, believes that it is far more likely that Isaiah is referring to the far more immediate future. The Hebrew can even be interpreted to say that the conception in question had already taken place when Isaiah was writing.
Carter believes the real importance of this verse is in its wider context in Isaiah. He argues that the readers of Matthew would have been very familiar with Isaiah and would immediately recognize the context of this verse. The verse occurs when Judah is under threat from the Syrians. Isaiah promises that God can save Israel from this threat, but that if the Jews continue to sin the Assyrian empire will be the instrument of God's vengeance. Carter believes that Matthew is using this situation as an allegory for the time in which he was writing. Immanuel if followed will lead to salvation from the empire, in Matthew's time the Roman, but if the messiah is rebuffed that same empire will be God's instrument of punishment for the Jewish people as presented by the destruction of the temple in 70 AD.
Joseph carries out the angel's instructions exactly. "Taking his wife" refers to the second portion of the marriage ritual. Mary and Joseph had already been wed, but by tradition the bride stayed in her father's home for another year or so. At that point the husband would take the wife into his home. It is this second phase of the marriage that "take his wife" refers to. The Greek and the later text make clear this is not a euphemism for sexual relations. Alexander notes that rapid and unquestioning obedience, as shown here by Joseph, is an important virtue in the Gospel.
This verse suggests that Mary was a virgin at the time of Jesus' birth, and is cited as one of the of scriptural evidences for the Virgin Birth. Older and more puritanical translations often bowdlerized this passage using more euphemistic terms. Modern versions almost all use the word sexual.
This passage is the centre of much controversy in the debate over the perpetual virginity of Mary. To many Protestants this verse is one of the central reasons for rejecting the Perpetual Virginity. The author of Matthew only states that sexual relations did not occur prior to the birth of Jesus, implying that they occurred afterwards. Those who support the Perpetual Virginity argue that the passage is far vaguer in the original Greek than it is in English. In English a negation until implies that the event in question did happen afterwards. Brown, a Roman Catholic, states that some scholars contend in Greek a negation until implies nothing about what happens afterwards. Presbyterian Hill acknowledges that the wording does not absolutely deny the Perpetual Virginity; however, he argues that if the idea of the perpetual virginity had been current at the time the gospel was written then the author of Matthew would have been more specific.
As reported in Luke the child would have been named eight days after his birth at the time of the circumcision. The phrase "he called" is gender neutral in the original Greek. Some translate the line as "she called," which is somewhat more in keeping with Luke, but which contradicts the rest of this chapter. Most scholars and translations thus have Joseph as the namer. Legally either parent could name the child. Gundry believes that having Joseph naming Jesus is a clear demonstration of Jesus' legal status as his son, and thus as an heir of King David, a continutation of the argument made by the genealogy.
Matthew 1 is the first chapter of the Gospel of Matthew in the New Testament. It contains two distinct sections. The first lists the genealogy of Jesus's legal father Joseph from Abraham. The second part, beginning at Matthew 1:18, relates the virgin birth of Jesus.
[edit] The genealogy
Matthew opens with the genealogy of Jesus's legal father Joseph, evincing the author considers it important. The genealogy demonstrates that Jesus belongs to the House of David, and thus is his heir. The Gospel also asserts Jesus is, in fact, the Son of God, and Joseph is, thus, not actually Jesus's father. Legally, however, Joseph is Jesus's father and some scholars contend legal parentage is of the most importance. Ra McLaughlin argues that the central event in this passage is actually the adoption of Jesus by Joseph (signified by his naming of the child), which alone makes Jesus eligible to be the messiah from the line of David.
The section begins with Abraham who is traditionally regarded as the ancestor of all the families of the Earth. It then runs through the prominent Old Testament figures of Isaac, Jacob, and Judah. The passage also references Judah's brothers who have no actual place in the genealogy. Gundry contends they are included because the author of Matthew is trying to portray the people of God as a brotherhood.
There are several problems with the genealogies. The list here is siginificantly different from that found in Luke 3, where the list from the Babylonian captivity to Jesus's grandfather is wholly different. Matthew skips several names in portions where the genealogy is well-known from other sources, Jehoiakim is left out in Matthew 1:11 and four names are dropped from Matthew 1:8. Unlike most Biblical genealogies, Matthew's genealogy mentions several figures not in the direct line of descent, including four women, Tamar, Ruth, Bathsheba, and Rahab. (See the discussion at Matthew 1:3.)
Several theories address these questions. One popular theory is that, while Matthew provides the genealogy of Joseph and his father Jacob, Luke details the genealogy of Joseph's father-in-law Heli. McLaughlin argues that because Jeconiah must be counted in two different groups in order to make the "fourteen generations" of v. 17, the genealogy here must be seen, not as a historically complete list, but as a literary device intended to highlight four significant events in Israelite history: the covenant with Abraham, the covenant with David, the Babylonian exile, and especially the reign of the messiah, which is the subject of the rest of the Gospel.
Other scholars doubt these theories, and most who do not believe in the inerrancy of the Bible believe one or both of the pair are historically inaccurate. Luke's genealogy contains a more realistic number of names, given the time period, and Matthew's list also lacks the papponymic naming used in the period. Gundry believes the latter part of Matthew's list is "a large figure of speech". He argues that at the time it was perfectly acceptable to fill gaps in a historical narrative with plausible fiction.
[edit] Birth of Jesus
The second part of Matthew 1 relates some of the events from the birth of Jesus. While Luke and Matthew disagree on some details, the most important ideas, such as the Virgin Birth and the divine nature of Jesus, are shared. Unlike Luke's account, Matthew focuses on the character of Joseph and Joseph's discovery and concern over his betrothed's pregnancy and the message from an angel telling Joseph to stand by Mary, quoting Isaiah 7:14 presaging the birth of the Messiah.
This section's focus on Joseph is unusual. Schweizer feels Matthew is far more concerned with proving Jesus's legal status as the stepson of Joseph, and thus a legal heir of David, than proving the Virgin Birth. Schweizer feels this evinces Matthew's intended audience was of predominantly Jewish background, a pattern continuing throughout the Gospel, and the importance Old Testament references provides further evidence. Hill feels the quote from Isaiah was, in fact, the central element and believes the entire last part of the chapter was written to prove Jesus's story matches the prophecy.
Stendhal, by contrast, sees the second section of this chapter as a large footnote to the last line of the genealogy, a lengthy explanation of why Joseph is merely the husband of Jesus's mother but also why Jesus is an heir to David. McLaughlin argues that Matthew recognizes that the prophecy Isaiah gave to King Ahaz in the referenced Old Testament passage concerned a virgin living at that time (namely, Isaiah's wife) and a child (namely, Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz), who was born as a sign to Ahaz (Isaiah 8:1), and he argues that Matthew saw the act of salvation of which Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz's birth was a sign as a "type" (or pre-figuring) of the salvation that would come through the virgin and child he was describing (namely, Mary and Jesus).
Other commentators feel this section should be attached to the second chapter, which is divided into four sections, each focusing on an Old Testament passage, and this portion is often seen as the first of those sections.
