Experiencing a Biblical Self-Consuming Artifact: Jesus' Genealogy (Matt 1:2-17) (original) (raw)
Related papers
The Genealogy as the Key to the Gospel according to Matthew
Journal of Biblical Literature, 1976
T HE uniqueness of Matthew's composition is accentuated by its unusual introduction; it is the only writing in the New Testament or in early Christian literature which begins with a table of ancestry. Certain features distinguish this register of names as a novel presentation of a family tree. In contrast to Luke 3:23-38 (the only other genealogy of Jesus in the NT), which delineates Jesus' forefathers in reverse order from his "father" Joseph back to Adam, a listing is offered which traces his ancestors from Abraham in a forward movement to Jesus himself. The verb iytvvr)otv ("he became the father of") is used 39 times to connect father and son pairs, but the rather monotonous progression is unexpectedly broken at the very end. Instead of a fortieth instance of the verb and therefore of a father-son relationship, the genealogy introduces Joseph as "the husband of Mary, from whom was born Jesus who is called the Christ" (1:16). Moreover, several women of different reputations have been included previously among the male descendants through whom the family line moves, even though they are not to be counted separately as individual generations. 1 Also in contrast to Luke's presentation -and most others -Matthew's genealogy is numerically structured according to a pattern which seems to demarcate three divisions each consisting of fourteen names: "Therefore all the generations from Abraham to David (are) fourteen generations and from David to the Babylonian Captivity fourteen generations and from the Babylonian Captivity to the Christ fourteen generations" (1:17).
Matthew's Genealogy of Jesus the Messiah far from straightforward
“For those who study deeply into the Gospel text, Matthew’s prologue, contained in his first two chapters, is one of the most masterful pieces of writing ever presented to human eyes. The genealogy with which this prologue begins displays its full share of wondrous artistry, but so subtle is its turn that many commentators have failed to grasp the logic that it implies.”. Monsignor John McCarthy.
Espaços - Revista de Teologia e Cultura (ITESP) 27 n. 2, 2019
throughout time the genealogies of Jesus (Matt 1.1-17 and Luke 3.23-38) have been interpreted specifically through harmonization theses and theses that include Mary. However, these theses possess a conjectural and artificial basis that creates unconvincing and unacceptable complications to a critical study. This article reviews those theses, pointing out their errors and incongruities. Subsequently, the author engages in a minute analysis of the genealogies. The result of the analysis is the revelation of new details and observations that lead to more logical, appropriate and enlightening solutions.
Jesus’ Genealogies: Coherence in Content
Summary: Jesus’ genealogies in Matthew and Luke are frequently dismissed as ‘irreconciliable’. Such claims, however, like certain defences of Jesus’ genealogies, are too quick. Matthew and Luke differ from one another, not because they are poor historians, nor because one of them provides Joseph’s genealogy while the other provides Mary’s, nor even because they are ‘theological genealogies’ (whatever such things might be), but because two individuals in Joseph’s ancestry (viz. Shealtiel and Matthan/Matthat) chose to be adopted/grafted into different family lines within their clan. Keywords: Matthew 1, Luke 3, genealogies, Jesus, Jehoiachin, Messiah, adoption. Date: Nov. 2019.
Restoring the Missing Generation in Matthew 1
Restoring the Missing Generation in Matthew 1, 2021
This paper documents the very curious case of the Gospel of Matthew promising forty-two names in three sets of fourteen names each while all Greek copies list only forty-one. After more than 20 years of research in Aramaic and Syriac Scripture and liturgical tradition, I came to the conclusion the problem came from a mistranslation of one Aramaic word into later Greek sources. That mistranslation led to the fact that the Joseph mentioned in Matthew 1:16 cannot be the same as the Joseph mentioned in Matthew 1:19. While the Greek terms aner/andros were accurate equivalents to the Aramaic word gowra, the loss of understanding Semitic culture and legal nuances therefrom led to the misunderstanding becoming permanent and widespread on the Greek side.
The Davidic Key for Counting the Generations in Matthew 1:17
Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 2014
(Concluding paragraph:) Accordingly, the postulation of a pre-existing, forty-member genealogy structured around Abraham, David, Josiah, and Joseph does more than merely solve a math problem. It also provides a window into the diversity of early Christological beliefs and one person’s attempt to reconcile various traditions and ideas about Jesus. However interesting the supposition of a pre-composed genealogy may be, it is not the final product. Matthew’s text is what must be explained, and there have been many attempts to count its generations. Of these, the least problematic is that Matthew double-counts David, just as the text tells us to do by reiterating David in v.17. David is thus the key to counting the generations in Matthew’s genealogy. Other attempts abandon the precise wording of v.17 in favor of a more ideally symmetric arrangement of three sets of fourteen. But this one misstep begets another, forcing exegetes to suppose additional complications—that our text is somehow missing a generation, that the author somehow alluded to the missing generation ever so subtly, or that Matthew somehow miscounted, even though the opening section is where authors ordinarily exercise the most care. Rather, the simplest solution is that Matthew tolerated a slight deviation from symmetric perfection, and so should his interpreters.
The Generation of the Deportation to Babylon Matthew 1,17 as the Key to Counting Matthew's Genealogy
Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses, 2021
In his genealogy Matthew tells us that there are 42 generations from Abraham to Christ (3×14). Yet the actual names reckoned there add up to only 41. Traditional solutions have tried to restore the missing generation by suggesting that (1) a name was inadvertently left out of the genealogy, (2) Matthew intended one of the hinge-point figures (e.g., David or Jechoniah) to be counted twice, or (3) the missing generation is somehow present but not immediately obvious. A survey of these solutions as argued from early times reveals their essential inadequacies. The first solution lacks sufficient manuscript support and founders on details when attempted, the second requires Matthew to have failed to adhere to the genealogical pattern he himself has established, and the third, to quote Stephen C. Carlson, requires ‘overly subtle inferences.' The path forward is given by Matthew himself in verse 17 which informs us that the hinge between the second and third tables of the genealogy is not the generation of a person (e.g. Jeconiah), but of an event: the deportation to Babylon.