Page images
PDF
EPUB

E

'Aẞpaáp. But, since for the editor the main interest centred in the person of Christ rather than of Abraham, it was not unnatural for him to depart from literary usage in this respect. It seems probable that the title should be taken as covering not the whole Gospel, but only that portion of it which gives Christ's ancestry and the circumstances of His birth and childhood.

Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ.] This collocation is rare in the Synoptic Gospels. It occurs here, 118 1621 Mk 11 only. Also in Jn 117 173 Xpíoros has become a proper name, and lost its adjectival force. For the history of Xpíoros as a Messianic title, see Dalm. Words, 289 ff.-vioû Aaveid] For "Son of David" as a title of the Messiah, see Dalm. Words, 319 ff.—vioû 'Aẞpaáμ] Cf. He 216 σπέρματος ̓Αβραὰμ ἐπιλαμβάνεται. The descent of the Messiah from Abraham is emphasised in Test. Levi 8. Cf. Volz, Jud. Eschat. 216.

The genealogy which follows was probably compiled by the editor for the purpose of his Gospel. (a) In accordance with this purpose he carries back the genealogy to Abraham, the first founder of the Jewish race. (b) He inserts details which are out of place in a strict genealogy, but which are in harmony with the theme of his Gospel, e.g. ἐκ τῆς Θάμαρ, ν.8; ἐκ τῆς Ῥαχάβ, ν. ; ἐκ τῆς Ῥούθ, ν.5; ἐκ τῆς τοῦ Οὐρίου, ν.. These names are probably introduced as those of women, in whose case circumstances were overruled by the divine providence which, as it might have seemed, should have excluded them from a place in the ancestral line of the Messiah. They were in a sense forerunners of the Virgin Mary. (c) The division into three groups of fourteen names also has its purpose. In David the family rose to royal power (Aaveid Tòv Bariλéa, v.6). At the Captivity it lost it again. In the Christ it regained it.

For the names in the genealogy the compiler naturally had recourse to the Old Testament so far as that availed him. He appears to have used the LXX text.

[ocr errors]

V.2 comes from 1 Ch 134 21, v.3 from 1 Ch 24. 5. 9, vv.4-6a from Ch 210-13, vv.6 6b-11 from 1 Ch 35. 10-15, vv. 12. 13 to ZopoBáße from 1 Ch 317-19. The names in vv. 13-16 come from an unknown source, probably from information received from Christ's relations.

2. Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judah and his brethren.] Αβραὰμ ἐγέννησε τὸν Ἰσαάκ, from 1 Ch_134 καὶ ἐγέννησεν ̓Αβραὰμ τὸν Ἰσαάκ. In the next clause jlakúß comes from 1 Ch 134, where the Heb. has "Israel." This is at the outset a hint that the compiler is using the LXX rather than the Hebrew.—Ἰούδαν καὶ τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς αὐτοῦ] The compiler borrows 'Iovdá from 1 Ch 21, and then summarises the brethren whose names are there given as τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς αὐτοῦ. The fact

that he mentions the brethren at all suggests that he has this verse in Chronicles before him.

I

3. And Judah begat Phares and Zara from Tamar; and Phares E begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram.] Clause a is from 1 Ch 24 xai Θαμὰρ ἡ νύμφη αὐτοῦ ἔτεκεν αὐτῷ τὸν Φάρες καὶ τὸν Ζαρά. The fact that the compiler adds καὶ τὸν Ζαρὰ ἐκ τῆς Θάμαρ, which is quite superfluous in a genealogy proper, shows that he had 1 Ch 24 before him. Zapá is the Septuagintal form of n. On the editor's special reason for mentioning Tamar, see above.-'Eopúμ] In 1 Ch 29 B has 'Eσepov, A Luc. 'Eopóp. In 1 Ch 25 B has Αρσών, Β : b! Εσρών, A Luc. Εσρώμ. Elsewhere Εσρώμ is peculiar to A Luc., never appearing in B. Its use in Mt. shows that the compiler was using Septuagintal forms, and not transliterating the Hebrew.-'Apáμu] In 1 Ch 29 'Apáμ appears as a son of Εσρώμ.

4. And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; E and Naasson begat Salmon.]-Apáu] In 1 Ch 210 B has 'Appáv, but A Luc. ̓Αράμ.—Αμιναδάβ] In 1 Ch 210 B has 'Apevadáß, but A Luc. 'Αμιναδάβ. Ναασσών and Σαλμών come from 1 Ch 210. 11. They are the Septuagintal forms of in and y.

5. And Naasson begat Boes from Rahab; and Boes begat Iobed E from Ruth; and Iobed begat Jessai.]—Bóol] In 1 Ch 211. 12 B has Boos, but A Luc. βόοζ.—ἐκ τῆς Ῥαχάβ] For the insertion, see on v.. 'Paxáß is not a Septuagintal form. This version uniformly has Ῥαάβ. However, Josephus has ἡ Ῥαχάβη or 'Paáẞn, Ant. v. 8, 11, 15. The editor adopts here a form which represents the Hebrew more nearly than Ῥαάβ. Ἰωβήδ and 'Ieoraí are the Septuagintal forms of Taiy and or . They come from 1 Ch 212, where B has 'nẞnd and A 'Iwßýð.

6. And Jessai begat David the king.] The insertion of "the E king," which was perhaps suggested by Baoiλevoev, 1 Ch 3* or by Ru 422 LXX A, marks the close of the first division of the genealogy. At this point the family obtained royal power. Aaved is the Septuagintal form. For Tov Baoiλéa, cf. also Jos. Ant. v. ix. 4:—"From Obed came Jessai, and from him David the king ( Baoiλevoas), and left the sovereignty to his sons for twenty-one generations. I thought it necessary to recount the history of Ruth, because I wished to show the power of God, that He can advance even the ignoble to splendid dignity; such as that to which He brought David, though born of such parents."

6, 7. And David begat Solomon from the wife of Uriah; and Solomon begat Roboam.] 1 Ch 35. 10-oλou@va] The LXX A B has Σαλωμών, Luc. Σαλομών, Josephus Σολομών. Ροβοάμ is the Septuagintal form.—ἐκ τῆς τοῦ Οὐρείου] Perhaps suggested to

the editor by 1 Ch 35. For the insertion of a woman's name, see on v.1. Oupeíov is the Septuagintal form.

E 7, 8. And Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asaph; and Asaph begat Joshaphat; and Joshaphat begat Joram.] Cf. 1 Ch 310. 11-Aẞia LXX A B has 'Aßelá, Luc. Aẞia. Josephus Aßías. Aoáp] In Ch. LXX A B Luc. has 'Aoá, Josephus "Agravos. But Arap is a Septuagintal form. See Burkitt, Evangelion Da-Mepharreshe, 203. 'Iwoapár and 'Iwpáμ are Septuagintal forms. Josephus has Ιωσάφατος and Ιωραμος.

E

E

8, 9. And Joram begat Ozias; and Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Ahaz; and Ahaz begat Hezekias.] Cf. 1 Ch 311. 12. Joram begat Ozias. Commentators usually note that Mt. has here omitted three kings, Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah. But this is not the case. 1 Ch 311 records that 'Olea was the son of Joram. That is to say, Mt. follows the LXX of the Chronicles. Mt. continues: Οξείας δὲ ἐγέννησε τὸν Ἰωάθαμ. The Chronicler LXX has Ιωας υἱὸς αὐτοῦ, Αμασίας υἱὸς αὐτοῦ, 'Αζαριὰ υἱὸς αὐτοῦ, 'Iwalàv viòs auroù. That is to say, Mt. has omitted not Ahaziah ='Oleías, Joash, and Amaziah, but Joash, Amaziah, and Azariah Uzziah. The reason must be sought in 1 Ch 311 LXX. The son of Joram is there called 'Oleiá. Now for Ahaziah the LXX generally has Όχοζείας, whilst Οζειά is generally the equivalent of Uzziah, e.g. 2 Ch 268. Oletá in 1 Ch 311 is possibly a mistake. Mt. as he copied it seems naturally enough to have connected it with Uzziah, and so to have passed on to this king's son, Jotham, thus omitting unconsciously the three intervening kings. Or the copy of the LXX which he followed may have made the omission for the same reason.-'Ogeías] The Septuagintal forms are 'Oleá, B; 'Olías, A Luc.-'Iwadáμ] The LXX A B has 'Iwa@áv, but Luc. 'Iwoáu.-Axat] The LXX A B has "Axas, but Luc. "Axa. 'Elexías is the LXX form.

10. And Hezekiah begat Manasseh; and Manasseh begat Amos; and Amos begat Josiah.]-Mavaσons] So LXX, Josephus. —Ἰωσείας] LXX A B has Ἰωσειά, but Luc. Ἰωσίας; so Josephus. Αμώς] LXX B has 'Αμνών, Al Bab ̓Αμώς. Josephus, "Αμωσος οι Αμμών.

E 11. And Josiah begat Jechoniah and his brethren, at the time of the captivity into Babylon.] καὶ τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς αὐτοῦ is inserted because in 1 Ch 31 the names of the brethren of Jehoiakim are recorded just as the same words occur in v.2, because the brethren of Judah are registered in 1 Ch 21.

I

The verse as it stands gives rise to great difficulties, because Jehoiakim has been omitted. But the text must be corrupt. As it stands there are only thirteen names in the third division, beginning with Salathiel. And this is impossible in view of v.17. If we suppose that Ιεχονίαν in v.11 is a corruption for Ἰωακείμ,

everything is plain. The κai Toùs ådeλpous is then due to 1 Ch 315, where the names of Jehoiakim's brethren are given.—¿πì rŷs μετοικεσίας] μετοικεσία, a rare word. It occurs ten times in the LXX, besides only Anth. P. 7. 731. The mention of the Captivity closes the second division of the genealogy. In the generation of Jechoniah the family lost the royal power to which it had risen in the person of David.

12. And after the captivity into Babylon, Jechoniah begat Sala- E thiel.] From Ch 317.

12, 13. And Salathiel begat Zorobabel; and Zorobabel begat E Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim.] In 1 Ch 319 the Hebrew represents Zerubbabel as the son of Pedaiah. But the LXX B A gives καὶ υἱοὶ Σαλαθιήλ Ζοροβάβελ, κ.τ.λ. The editor is therefore clearly using the LXX. It seems clear that up to this point the editor has been using the LXX of 1 Ch 1-3. For (1) the names are given in the forms of the LXX. The only apparent exceptions are 'Aσáp and 'Paɣáß. The latter does not occur in 1 Ch 1-3, and the editor substitutes a traditional form for the 'Paáß of the LXX. (2) Several of the details in Mt. are explained by his use of the LXX of 1 Ch., e.g. (a) 'Iaxúß, v.2. So LXXI Ch 134, Heb. (6) 'Iwрàμ dè èyévvησe тòv 'Olíav (v.). So LXX ἐγέννησε τὸν Οζίαν 1 Ch_311. (c) Σαλαθιήλ δὲ ἐγέννησε τὸν Ζοροβάβελ (ν.13). LXX 1 Ch 319. Other details in the genealogy point to a use of 1 Ch. but not necessarily of the LXX version, e.g. (a) κai TOVS ἀδελφοὺς αὐτοῦ (v.2), is explained by 1 Ch_21. 2; (6) καὶ τὸν Ζαρὰ ἐκ τῆς Θάμαρ (ν.3), by reference to i Ch 24; (c) καὶ τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς avτou (v.11), by reference to 1 Ch 315.

[ocr errors]

So

For the names which follow, the editor is dependent on other information.

13, 14. And Eliakim begat Azor; and Azor begat Sadok; and E Sadok begat Acheim; and Acheim begat Eliud.]

15. And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; E and Matthan begat Jacob.]

16. And Jacob begat Joseph. Joseph, to whom was espoused E Mary a virgin, begat Jesus, who is called Christ.] Thus ends the third division of the genealogy. The family now regained in the Christ, the anointed King, the sovereignty which it had won in David and lost at the Captivity. There is no sufficient ground for supposing that the genealogy ever existed apart from the Gospel. The references to Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, Bathsheba, can only be explained as due to the editor of the Gospel, who saw in the life histories of these women a divine overruling of history from which a right understanding of Mary's virginity might be drawn. Of course these references might have been inserted by the editor of the Gospel in a genealogy which he found ready made to his hand. But the artificial arrangement into three

E

groups of fourteen names reminds us of the not infrequent predilection for arrangements in three which runs through the entire work. Cf. the following: three incidents of Christ's childhood, ch. 2; three incidents prior to His ministry, 3-4"; three temptations, 41-11; threefold interpretation of "do not commit murder," v.22; three illustrations of "righteousness," 61-18; three prohibitions, 619-76; three injunctions, 77-27; three miracles of healing, 81-15; three miracles of power, 823-98; three complaints of His adversaries, 91-17; threefold answer to question about fasting, 914-17; three incidents illustrating the hostility of the Pharisees, 12; three parables of sowing, 131-32; three sayings about "little ones," ch. 18; three parables of prophecy, 2128-2214; three parables of warning, 2482-2530. There is, further, no ground for the widespread belief that the genealogy is in itself a proof of a belief that Christ was the natural son of Joseph and Mary. This particular genealogy contains the condemnation of such a belief. The man who could compile it and place immediately after it 118-25, clearly did not believe that Christ was the son of Joseph. He inserted in the genealogy the references to the women and the relative clause "to whom was betrothed Mary a virgin," in order to anticipate vv.18-25. In other words, éyévvnore throughout the genealogy denotes legal, not physical descent. He had before him two traditional facts-(a) that Christ was born of a Virgin in a supernatural manner, (b) that He was the Messiah, i.e. the Son of David. How could a Jewish Christian, indeed how could anyone, reconcile these facts otherwise than by supposing that Mary's husband was the legal father of Christ? So non-natural a sense of fatherhood may seem strange to us, but the fact of the supernatural birth which gave rise to it is stranger. Whatever we may think of it, this was the belief of the editor of the Gospel; so that there is no ground for the widespread opinion that the existence. of a genealogy of Christ is proof of an underlying belief that He was the natural son of Joseph and Mary. If the editor simply tried to give expression to the two facts which had come down to him by tradition-the fact of Christ's supernatural birth, and the fact that He was the Davidic Messiah, and did not attempt a logical synthesis of them, who shall blame him?

The

17. Therefore all the generations from Abraam to David are fourteen generations; and from David to the Captivity into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the Captivity into Babylon to the Christ are fourteen generations.] The artificial character of the genealogy is obvious from this verse. arrangement into three will be found to be characteristic of this Gospel. The grouping into three fourteens may be due to the fact that in the Hebrew name David=717, there are three letters, and that the numerical value of these letters is 4+6+4=14.

« PreviousContinue »