Page images
PDF
EPUB

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

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 kai Θαμάρ η νύμφη αυτού έτεκεν αυτώ τον Φάρες και τον Ζαρά. The fact that the compiler adds και τον Ζαρά εκ της Θάμαρ, which is quite superfluous in a genealogy proper, shows that he had 1 Ch 24 before him. Zapá is the Septuagintal form of mot. On the editor's special reason for mentioning Tamar, see above.-'Eopup] In 1 Ch 29 B has 'Erepór, A Luc. 'Eopóp. In 1 Ch 25 B has Αρσών, Β 81 b1 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.—'Apáu] In 1 Ch 29 'Apáj appears as a Son of Εσρώμ.

4. And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson ; E and Naasson begat Salmon.}Apdu] In 1 Ch 210 B has 'Appáv, but A Luc. Αράμ.-'Αμιναδάβ] In 1 Ch 210 B has 'Αμειναδάβ, but A Luc. 'Αμιναδάβ. Ναασσών and Σαλμών come from 1 Ch 220.11. They are the Septuagintal forms of fiving and ani.

6. And Naasson begat Boes from Rahab; and Boes begat lobed E from Ruth; and lobed begat Jessai.)—Bóoš] In 1 Ch 211. 12 B has Bóos, but A Luc. Bó06.ěk rñs 'Paxáß] For the insertion, see on v.?. 'Paxáß is not a Septuagintal form. This version uniformly has 'Paáß. However, Josephus has ý 'Paxáßn or 'Padßn, Ant. v. 8, 11, 15. The editor adopts here a form which represents the Hebrew more nearly than 'Paaß. 'Iwßng and 'lerraí are the Septuagintal forms of ziy and poor x. They come from 1 Ch 212, where B has 'I2Bng and A 'Iwßna.

6. And Jessai begat David the king.] The insertion of the E king," which was perhaps suggested by Baolevoev, 1 Ch 34 or by Ru 422 LXX A, marks the close of the first division of the genealogy

At this point the family obtained royal power. Aaveid is the Septuagintal form. For tòv Baouléa, cf. also Jos. Ant. v. ix. 4 :-“From Obed came Jessai, and from him David the king (& Bao levoas), 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 36.10. — Lodouwva) The LXX AB has Σαλωμών, Luc. Σαλομών, Josephus Σολομών. Ροβοάμ is the Septuagintal form.—&K ñs roll Oúpelov] Perhaps suggested to

the editor by 1 Ch 3. For the insertion of a woman's name, see

on v.? Oúpelov 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. —'Aßa] LXX A B has 'Abeá, Luc. 'Aßiá. Josephus "Αβίας.-Ασάφ] In 1 Ch. LXX A B Luc. has 'Agá, Josephus "Agavos. But Acád is a Septuagintal form. See Burkitt, Evangelion Da-Mepharreshe, 203. 'Iwoapát and 'Iwpáu are Septuagintal forms. Josephus has Ιωσάφατος and Ίώραμος.

8, 8. And Joram begat Ozias ; and Ozias begat Joatham ; and Joatham begat Ahas; and Ahas 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 'Ofelá was the son of Joram. That is to say, Mt. follows the LXX of the Chronicles. Mt. continues : 'όζείας δε έγέννησε τον Ιωάθαμ. The Chronicler LXX has Ιωάς υιός αυτού, 'Αμασίας υιός αυτού, Αζαριά υιός αυτού, 'Iwaðày viòs aŭtoû. That is to say, Mt. has omitted not Ahaziah ='OČelas, 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 'Ofelá. Now for Ahaziah the LXX generally has 'Oxoselas, whilst 'Ofelá is generally the equivalent of Uzziah, e.g. 2 Ch 268ff. 'Ocelá 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.—'ocelas] The Septuagintal forms are 'ocerá, B; 'ofías, A Luc.—'Iwafu The LXX A B has 'Iwabáv, but Luc. Ιωθάμ.-"Αχαζ) The LXX AB has "Αχας, but Luc. "Αχαζ. 'Etexias is the LXX form.

10. And Hezekiah begat Manasseh ; and Manasseh begat Amos; and Amos begat Josiah.]-Mavagons]. So LXX, Josephus. -'Iwceias] LXX A B has 'Iworld, but Luc. 'Iwolas; so Josephus.

-Αμώς] LXX B has 'Αμνών, Α' Β4 5 'Αμώς. Josephus, "Aμωσος or 'Αμμών. E 11. And Josiah begat Jechoniah and his brethren, at the time

of the captivity into Babylon.] και τους αδελφούς αυτού is inserted because in 1 Ch 31 the names of the brethren of Jehoiakim are recorded just as the same words occur in v.?, because the brethren of Judah are registered in 1 Ch 21

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 'legoviav in v.11 is a corruption for 'Iwakeij,

everything is plain. The kaì rojs ådelpoús is then due to i Ch 315, where the names of Jehoiakim's brethren are given.—ěTì tūs 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 i Ch 319 the Hebrew represents Zerubbabel as the son of Pedaiah. But the LXX B A gives και υιοι 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 'Acáp and 'Paxáß. The latter does not occur in i Ch 1-3, and the editor substitutes a traditional form for the ‘Pauß of the LXX. (2) Several of the details in Mt. are explained by his use of the LXX of 1 Ch., e.g. (a) 'Iakóß, v.%. So LXX 1 Ch 184, Ηeb. xii. (0) Ιωράμ δε έγέννησε τον Οζίαν (v.9). So LXX 1 Ch 311. (c) Σαλαθιήλ δε έγέννησε τον Ζοροβάβελ (v.13). So 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) kai tous αδελφούς αυτού (v.2), is explained by 1 Ch 21. 2; () και τον Ζαρά έκ της Θάμαρ (v.3), by reference to 1 Ch 24; (c) και τους αδελφούς aútoll (v.11), by reference to i Ch 315.

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

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, 82-98; 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, éyévvnge 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, (6) 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 ?

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. The 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.

a

יִשְׂרָאֵל .Heb

everything is plain. The kaì rojs åderboús is then due to i Ch 315, where the names of Jehoiakim's brethren are given.—tñs 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 1 Ch 317.

12, 13. And Salathiel begat Zorobabel ; and Zorobabel begat E Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim.] In 1 Ch 319 the Hebrew

i represents Zerubbabel as the son of Pedaiah. But the LXX B A gives και υιοί 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 'Aoad and 'Paxáß. 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) 'Iakóß, v.%. So LXX i Ch 184,

(1) Ιωράμ δε έγέννησε τον Οζίαν (v.2). So LXX

(6) '(). 1 Ch 311. () Σαλαθιήλ δε έγέννησε τον Ζοροβάβελ (v.13). So LXX 1 Ch 310. Other details in the genealogy point to a use of 1 Ch. but not necessarily of the LXX version, e.g. (a) kai tous αδελφούς αυτού (v.2), is explained by 1 Ch 21. 2 ; (ο) και τον Ζαρά εκ της Θάμαρ (v.3), by reference to 1 Ch 24 ; (c) και τους αδελφούς aútov (v."), by reference to i Ch 315.

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

« PreviousContinue »