Page images


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, 619-78; 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, 2 128–2214; three parables of warning, 2432–2530. 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. “By this means the genealogy was invested with the character of a sort of numerical acrostic on the name David” (G. H. Box, Interpreter, Jan. 1906, p. 199).

The genealogy thus constructed is no mere antiquarian attempt to discover genealogical facts. The writer is interested in the question whether Jesus was legally descended from David, and believes that this was the case. But his interest in this point arises from some other than a purely antiquarian motive. The clue to this motive is furnished by the insertion of the women. Why did the compiler think it necessary to safeguard in this manner the fact of the supernatural birth and of Mary's innocence. The reason can hardly be any other than that these things were already the ground of anti-Christian polemic on the part of the Jews. Celsus, c. A.D. 170-180, is already acquainted with the Jewish slander that Jesus was born out of wedlock; cf. Orig. Contra Celsum, i. 28, 32, 33, 39. And we may be sure that the Christian tradition of the supernatural birth which lies behind the first and third Gospels evoked Jewish slander as soon as it became known to the Jews. For the later Jewish forms of this slander cf. Laible, Jesus Christus im Talmud; Herford, Christianity in Talmud and Midrash; Krauss, Das Leben Jesu nach Jüdischen Quellen.

I. 1. Aaveld] So X ABCD al. The LXX has Aaveld or Aavid ; Josephus Δαυίδης or Δαβίδης. -'Αβραάμ] So LΧΧ. Josephus has "Αβραμος, Αβράμης (once), 'Αβραάμ rarely.

2. 'Ioadx] So LXX. Josephus "Igakos.-'Iakoß] So LXX. Josephus Iákwßos.--'Ioadx 8€) Om. dé here and throughout Sio

3. 'lovdas) LXX has ’lovdás or 'lovod. In 1 Ch 21 'Iovdá, B ; 'Loúdas, Luc.; 'Ioúðas, Josephus.--Zapá] B Ox Zapé, LXX Zapá, Josephus Zápagos or Έζελοός. - Φαρές]. So LXX; Josephus Φάρεσος.-Εσρώμ) LXX has Εσρώμ (not B), Εσερών, Εσρών, Εζρών, 'Αρσών. In 1 Ch 25 'Αρσών, Β; Εσρών, Be? mg ; Εσρώμ, A Luc. In 1 Ch 29 Εσερών, Β; Εσρών, Bab; Εσρώμ, A Luc.-'Apáu] In i Ch 29 LXX B has 'Apáj; in v.10 'Appáv, but A Luc. 'Αράμ.

4. 'Αμιναδάβ, NC al; 'Αμειναδάβ, Β Δ. In i Ch 210 LXX B has 'Αμειναδάβ, A Luc. 'Αμιναδάβ, Josephus 'Αμινάδαβος. -Ναασσών] So LΧΧ. ·-Ealuór] In 1 Ch 211 Heb. has xD5w, LXX B Luc. Ealuúr, Á Ealudv.

5. Boéo] X B 0x k ; Boós, C 33; Boóš, EK al; LXX has Boós, Boos. In i Chr 211. 12 B Boós, A Luc. Boóš, Josephus Bóašos, Boušys.- 'Paxáß] LXX 'Paáß. Josephus 'Paáßn, 'Paxáßn. —'Iwßno] B 0x ; 'NBńö, E K al ; LXX has 'n Bhd, 'Iwßng (A). In i Ch 212. 13 B Luc. 'NBņš, A 'Iwßno, Josephus 'NBńóns.—Povë] So LXX; Josephus 'Pocon.—'Iegoal) So LXX; Josephus Ιεσσαίος.

6. Σολομώνα] LXX has Σαλωμών, Σαλομών, Σαλωμώ, Σολομών (Α). In 1 Ch 35 Σαλωμών, Luc. Σαλομών, Josephus Σολομών.-Ουρείου] Β Οα.

7. Ροβοάμ] So LXX; Josephus Ροβόαμος. -'Αβιά] LΧΧ 'Αβειά, 'Αβιά ; Josephus 'Apias.-'Agáo] & B C D luc Ox. i. 209, 543, 700, k al. LXX has 'Ασά, Josephus"Ασανος.

8. Ιωσαφάτ] LΧΧ Ιωσαφάτ, Ιωσαφάτ. In 1 Ch 310 'Ιωσαφάτ, Josephus 'Iwodpatos. —'Iwpáj] So LXX; Josephus'Iópa pos.-'ošelar) Sa has “Ahazia ; Ahazia begat Joash; Joash begat Amozia." So Aphr.


9. 'Ofelas) ** B* ; LXX has 'oferá, 'Ogiá, 'Ofelas, ošias. In i Ch 3" 'ošela, B; ’ofiás, A Luc.; Josephus oglas.—'Iwabáu] So LXX ; Josephus 'Iwáðauos, 'Iwauns, 'Iwváons. — Axas] LXX has "Axaš, "Axas. In i Ch 313 "Axas, A B "Axas, Luc. Josephus "Axaços.--'EÇexias) So LXX, Josephus.

10. 'Αμώς, NBCD luo Ox; LΧΧ 'Αμνών, 'Αμμών, 'Αμώς. In i Ch 3.* B has 'Auvøv, Bab Als vel forte 'Auus, Luc. 'Auww, Josephus 'Aupcov,

11. 'I woelas) * B D luc; LXX has 'I woelas, 'I wolas ; Josephus ’Iwolas.τον Ιεχονίαν] We must read here τον Ιωακείμ και τους αδελφούς αυτού. Ιωακείμ δέ εγέννησε τον Ιεχονίαν επί της μετοικεσίας Βαβυλώνος. So substantially MU al S* Sø with asterisk.

12. Σαλαθιήλ] So LXX; Josephus Σαλαθληλος. -Ζοροβάβελ] So LXX; Josephus Ζοροβάβηλος.

16. On the text, see the admirable note of Mr. Burkitt, Evangelion da Mepharreshe, ii. 258 ff. The reading of NB al is : Ιακώβ δέ εγέννησε τον Ιωσήφ τον άνδρα Μαρίας εξ ης εγεννήθη Ιησούς ο λεγόμενος Χριστός. Besides this there is a second reading: Ιακώβ δέ εγέννησε τον Ιωσήφ ώ μνηστευθείσα παρθένος Μαριάμ έγέννησε Ιησουν τον λεγόμενον Χριστόν. This is the reading of the Ferrar group, 346, 556, 826, 828. So $? Jacob begat Joseph, him to whom was betrothed Mary the Virgin, she who bare Jesus the Messiah. So, too, the old latt abcdgkq. So, too, the text which underlies the Armenian ; cf. Robinson, Euthaliana, p. 82. Besides these two readings, S' has a third : “Jacob begat Joseph. Joseph, to whom was betrothed Mary the Virgin, begat Jesus, called the Messiah." Burkitt believes this to be a paraphrase of the reading of the Ferrar group, and thinks that S’ is derived from it. In this last point he is no doubt right. S’ is, as a whole, dependent on S', and it is therefore probable that Si has the earlier reading here. But it is questionable whether S does not represent a Greek text found nowhere else (not in the Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila ; see Burkitt, p. 265), namely, Ιακώβ δέ εγέννησε τον Ιωσήφ. Ιωσήφ δε η μνηστευθείσα ήν Μαριάμ παρθένος εγέννησε Ιησουν τον λεγόμενον Χριστόν. Burkitt objects that “the practice of the writer is to interpose no words between the name and the verb éyévvnge, so that the clause ή μνηστευθείσα παρθ. Μ. ought to follow the first mention of Joseph, not the second.” But the relative clause is clearly required in close connection with ¢yévvnoe in order to qualify it, meaning “begat,” but " from a virgin," i.e. not "literally," but "legally.” It seems probable, therefore, that the text underlying Si is the nearest approach now extant to the original Greek, and it must remain possible that even here the relative clause is an insertion. This earliest Greek form was gradually altered from a desire to avoid words which, though in the intention of the writer they expressed legal parentage, not paternity, in fact, might be misunderstood by thoughtless readers. The first step was perhaps the insertion of the relative clause. The second, the insertion as in S* of a second relative, “she who," as a subject to έγέννησε. The third, the substitution of τον άνδρα Μαρίας for

μνηστευθείσα Μ. παρθένος by assimilation to ν. 19 ο ανήρ αυτής, ανήρ being used as there in the sense of " betrothed husband,” and the substitution of the passive for the active in the following clause.

I. 18-25. His Supernatural Birth. P. I. 18–25. And the birth of the Christ was in this manner: His

mother Mary being betrothed to Joseph, before that they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit.) yéveois here means birth, begetting, as in Gn 3113, Ru 211, Lk 114 ; cf. also Hdt. 1204 669. Since yéveois has been used in 1' in a different sense, and since yévvyois is the common term for birth, we should expect the latter here.- uvnotevo belons] Betrothal according to Jewish marriage law constituted a legal relationship which could only be dissolved by legal means. See Merx, Die vier Evangelien, ii. 1, 9 ff. The narrative in this respect rests on an accurate knowledge of Jewish civil law. - veúpatos dyíov] For the omission of the article, cf. Blass, p. 149.— piv ň] cf. Blass, p. 229.

19. And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man, and (yet) P not wishing to disgrace her, was minded to put her away secretly.] -ó ávýp airns According to Jewish law, a betrothed woman was already the wife of her betrothed husband; cf. Merx, op. cit. p. 10.-díkalos) i.e. God-fearing, and a keeper of the law. Mary's condition seemed to make the fulfilment of their contract of marriage impossible for a religious man.-μη θέλων δειγματίσαι] On the other hand, he did not wish to expose her to shame. decyparioa occurs besides only Col 215, Asc. Is. in Am. Pap. i. i. viii. 21. δειγματισμός occurs on the Rosetta Stone.-λάθρα απολύσαι] Appeal to the courts for a divorce would expose Mary to public ignominy, and make her liable to severe penalties. Refusal to carry out the contract of marriage would leave her and her child in disgrace in the house of her parents. The latter seemed the more merciful course, and Joseph determined, therefore, to repudiate her by private arrangement.

20. And whilst he purposed this, behold, an angel of the Lord P appeared to him in a dream, saying, Joseph, son of David, fear not to take Mary thy wife : for that which is begotten in her is of the Holy Spirit.] — idoú] Exclusive of quotations, idoú occurs 30 times in Mt., 29 in Lk., 7 in Mk.; kai idov, 28 in Mt., 26 in Lk., o in Mk.—Kat' õvap] 6 times in Mt., not elsewhere in NT; cf. Ditt. Syll. 780. 5, 781. 4, 782. 4.- apalaßeîv] According to Jewish law, marriage begun in the betrothal, was completed in the "taking" of the bride to the house of her husband; cf. Merx, op. cit. p. 11.

21. And she shall bear a son, and thou shalt call His name P Jesus : for He shall save His people from their sins.] 'Ingoûs is the Greek form of youing or yies., “Jehovah is salvation”; cf. Philo, De Mut. Νom. 1. 597: Ιησούς δε σωτηρία κυρίου, έξεως όνομα της αρίστης.-αυτός γαρ σώσει τον λαόν αυτού από των αμαρτιών αυτών] cf. Ps 1298 και αυτός λυτρώσεται τον Ισραήλ εκ πασών των ανομιών αυτού. For τέξεται δε υιόν και καλέσεις το όνομα αυτού, cf. Gη 179 τέξεταί σοι υιόν και καλέσεις το όνομα αυτού. .

22. And all this came to pass, in order that it might be fulfilled o which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying.] The formula ίνα (όπως) πληρωθή το ρηθέν recurs 215. 23 414 817 1217 1335 214, cf. 2656. τότε πληρωθή το ρηθέν occurs 217 279. .

The quota

tions thus introduced are for the most part free renderings of the Hebrew. They are sometimes composite in character. The formula occurs in Jewish writings. Cf. Bacher, Exeget. Terminol. der Jüd. Traditionsliteratur, i. 171. yéyove here and 214 2666

seems equivalent to an aorist; cf. In 1936. O 23. Behold, the virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and

they shall call His name Immanuel, which is being interpreted, With us is God.] The quotation comes from Is 714, and is given according to the rendering of the LXX, with the exception that καλέσεις of the LΧΧ (σει και, -σετε Q*), which would not suit this context, is altered into kalémovou. For Ea (LXX X A Q), λήμψεται is read by LΧΧ Β. There are signs that the view that Isaiah was using current mythological terms, and intended his nobyn to carry with it the sense of supernatural birth, is rightly regaining ground. Cf. Jeremias, Babylonisches im Neuen Testament, p. 47; and Gressmann, Der Ursprung der Israelitischjüdischen Eschatologie, p. 270 ff. In any case, the LXX translators already interpreted the passage in this sense, and the fact that the later Greek translators substituted veâvis for nap évos, and that there are no traces of the supernatural birth of the Messiah in the later Jewish literature, is due to anti-Christian polemic. Cf. Just. Mart. Trypho, xliii., lxvii. It is probable that the editor is here, as elsewhere, adapting words of the O.T. to a tradition which he

had before him. 1 P 24, 25. And Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of

the Lord commanded him, and took his wife: and knew her not until she bore a son: and he called His name Jesus.]

For the redundant and Semitic use of eyepbéis see Dalman, Words of Jesus, 23, 36. The imperfect éyivwokev is against the tradition of perpetual virginity.

18. Xplotoû] So abcd S'S? ; Irenæus, III. xi. 8, xvi. 2; Tert. de Carne Christi, xxii. This Western reading is probably right. Nowhere in the N.T. is the article used before 'Ing. Xp. B has 'Xplotou ’Inooû, an assimilation to the later usage of S. Paul. Cal Or have toll de 'Ino Xp. The variation in the position of 'Ingoû is against its originality.

yéveris] So X B Cal Ox. géveris here means begetting (see above), whilst in i it has another meaning. The early translators differ in their treatment of the word. The latins render by generatio in both verses. The Syriac Si S’ render in v.? by “generation,” in this verse rightly by "birth. But gévvnois was more common in the latter sense, and is therefore substituted here by E K L al.-urnotevdeions] Add yáp E K L al. Omit, *BC* 20x, latt Sis?

19. ó åvìp aútñs] Om. Sø. -deiyuatioai] So ** BZ 0x; Eus. Quæst. i. 3. The word is very rare. It occurs in Col 215 and in Asc. Is. in Am. Pap. 1. i. viii. 21. Here it presumably means to expose to open and notorious disgrace. delyuatiuós on the Rosetta Stone means inspection.” Cr. Herwerden, Lex. Græc. Suppl. p. 190. X* CEK L al substitute the more common trapadetypatioai, which occurs in the LXX 5 times, Nu 25*, Es 4"}, Jer 139, Ezk 2817, Dn 2%; Ps-Sol 24, in Polyb. and Plut.

· See Briggs, “Criticism and the Dogma of the Virgin-Birth,” in North Amer. Rev., June 1906.


« PreviousContinue »