The Gospel of Matthew

By John Nolland

Having devoted the past ten years of his life to research for this major new work, John Nolland gives us a commentary on the Gospel of Matthew that engages with a notable range of Matthean scholarship and offers fresh interpretations of the dominant Gospel in the history of the church.

Without neglecting the Gospel's sources or historical background, Nolland places his central focus on the content and method of Matthew's story. His work explores Matthew's narrative technique and the inner logic of the unfolding text, giving full weight to the Jewish character of the book and its differences from Mark's presentation of parallel material. While finding it unlikely that the apostle Matthew himself composed the book, Nolland does argue that Matthew's Gospel reflects the historical ministry of Jesus with considerable accuracy, and he brings to the table new evidence for an early date of composition.

Including accurate translations based on the latest Greek text, detailed verse-by-verse comments, thorough bibliographies for each section, and an array of insightful critical approaches, Nolland's Gospel of Matthew will stimulate students, preachers, and scholars seeking to understand more fully Matthew's presentation of the gospel narrative.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Eerdmans
• Release date: Nov 1, 2005
• ISBN: 9781467423120

John Nolland

John Nolland is Vice Principal and Head of Biblical Studies as well as Lecturer in New Testament Studies at Trinity Collge, Bristol, England. He holds S.Sc. (Hons.) from University of New England (Australia), the Th.L. from the Australian College of Theology, The B.D. from the University of London, the Ph.D. from Cambridge University, and the Dip.Th. from Moore Theological College. His numerous articles have been published in Revue de Qumran, The journal of Theological Studies, Vigiliae Christianae, Journal of Biblical Literature, Novum Testamentum, New Testament Studies, and The Journal for the Study of Judaism.  

Book preview

I. THE STOCK FROM WHICH JESUS COMES — AND ITS HISTORY (1:1-17)

1[The] record of the origin of Jesus: Christ, son of David, son of Abraham.

2Abraham produced Isaac; Isaac produced Jacob; Jacob produced Judah and his brothers; 3Judah produced Perez and Zerah out of Tamar; Perez produced Hezron; Hezron produced Aram; 4Aram produced Aminadab; Aminadab produced Nahshon; Nahshon produced Salmon; 5Salmon produced Boaz out of Rahab; Boaz produced Obed out of Ruth; Obed produced Jesse; 6Jesse produced David the king.

David produced Solomon out of the wife of Uriah; 7Solomon produced Rehoboam; Rehoboam produced Abijah; Abijah produced Asaph;a 8Asapha produced Jehoshaphat; Jehoshaphat produced Jehoram;b Jehoramb produced Uzziah; 9Uzziah produced Jotham; Jotham produced Ahaz; Ahaz produced Hezekiah; 10Hezekiah produced Manasseh; Manasseh produced Amos [or Amon];c Amos [or Amon]c produced Josiah; 11Josiah producedd Jechoniah and his brothers, in the period in which the deportation to Babylon took place.

12After the deportation to Babylon, Jechoniah produced Shealtiel;e Shealtiele produced Zerubbabel; 13Zerubbabel produced Abiud; Abiud produced Eliakim; Eliakim produced Azor; 14Azor produced Zadok; Zadok produced Achim; Achim produced Eliud; 15Eliud produced Eleazar; Eleazar produced Matthan; Matthan produced Jacob; 16Jacob produced Joseph,f the husband of Mary, out of whom was producedf Jesus, who is called Christ.

17So, all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David to the deportation to Babylon, fourteen generations; and from the deportation to Babylon to the Christ fourteen generations.

TEXTUAL NOTES

a. L W latpt sy and the majority text have Ασα, conforming the reading to the OT name of the king.

b. The name can also be rendered ‘Joram’. Though less close to the Greek, ‘Jehoram’ has been preferred because it is the form mostly found in the OT for this king.

c. L W f¹³ lat sy and the majority text have Αμων, conforming to the more usual form for the name of King Amon and eliminating the possibility of allusion to the prophet Amos.

d. M Θ f¹ 33 etc. add τον Ιωακιμ, Ιωακιμ δε εγεννησεν (‘Jehoiakim; Jehoiakim produced’), filling in what was deemed to be the missing generation.

e. ‘Salathiel’ is the Greek name, but ‘Shealtiel’ is used for the sake of continuity with OT translation usage.

f-f. Though all the best texts and indeed almost all the Greek witness, supported by most of the versions, read the text as translated above, there are several strikingly different readings. Θ f¹³, with support from a (b) c d (k) (q) Ambr Aug Hipp, have ω μνηστευθεισα παρθενος Μαριαμ εγεννησεν. This could be taken to mean (a) ‘betrothed to whom, a virgin, Mary, bore’ or, linking Joseph to the main verb as well, (b) ‘to whom one betrothed (to him as) a virgin, Mary, bore’ or (c) ‘to whom a betrothed, a virgin, Mary, bore’. Sys could correspond to a Greek reading Ιωσηϕ ω μνηστευθεισα ην Μαριαμ παρθενος εγεννησεν, which seems to mean ‘Joseph, to whom was betrothed Mary, a virgin [or Mary (as) a virgin], produced’. Syc could correspond to a Greek reading ω μνηστευθεισα ην Μαριαμ παρθενος η ετεκεν (‘to whom was betrothed Mary, a virgin [or Mary (as) a virgin], who gave birth to’). (Arm splices into the normal text an equivalent to ω μνηστευθεισα ην Μαριαμ παρθενος as witnessed to by the sy texts; copbo has an equivalent to η ετεκεν in place of the normal εξ ης εγεννηθη.)

Syc is clearly something of a middle term between Θ and sys, sharing with the latter ην and the word order Μαριαμ παρθενος, but with the former referring the reproduction verb to Mary, not Joseph. The distinctive agreements of syc and sys may, however, be fortuitous: the addition of the verb may simply reflect better Syriac idiom, and the change in word order is to a more natural one, especially given the addition of the verb. With reference to the Θ reading, both sys and syc are concerned to clarify the reference of the final reproduction verb, which would be linguistically necessary at the point of translation into Syriac. After the long list of uses of εγεννησεν, all applied to the male role, it would be easy to take the final use in the same way (easy, but a mistake, since it would be ungrammatical to do so). The syc reading eliminates this possibility by specifying the application of the verb to the female role. The sys reading, impressed by the consistent pattern in the uses of εγεννησεν, decides that the ungrammatical reading must be the correct one, and that the grammatical fault was the result of the loss of the second Ιωσηϕ. By the addition of a second Ιωσηϕ the grammar is restored, as is the pattern of repetition of names. (The thoughtfulness that stands behind this is reflected in the alterations in vv. 21 and 25: ‘she will bear you a son’; ‘she bore him a son’. At the same time, this is not meant as a denial of the virgin birth since vv. 18-24 are not at all changed. The translator probably thinks of legal paternity, not biological.)

It seems reasonable, then, to derive both the sys and syc readings from that in Θ. But what account can be given of the reading in Θ? μνηστευομαι is used in v. 18 and παρθενος in v. 23, but since the two words come together in Lk. 1:27 (linked to a dative, and with Μαριαμ a few words later), it is the most likely source of influence. Perhaps the scribe read Mt. 1:25a as indicating that the state of betrothal persisted until the birth had taken place. He certainly did not in any way want to undermine the virgin-birth tradition. He did, however, think that his clarification could improve the text in another way as well: every other generation is introduced by εγεννησεν; now this one can be as well (admittedly the sense will be a little different, with the woman as subject, but the formal equivalence will be there). Our scribe did not realise that the text he produced could be taken in the senses represented by (b) and (c) above, nor that his bringing of the final generation into the pattern of uses of εγεννησεν would run the danger of being misread as applying to Joseph as father.

Bibliography

General for Mt. 1–2

Aarde, A. G. van, ‘The Evangelium Infantium, the Abandonment of Children, and the Infancy Narrative in Matthew 1 and 2 from a Social-Scientific Perspective’, SBLSP 31 (1992), 435-53. • Anderson, J. C., ‘Mary’s Difference: Gender and Patriarchy in the Birth Narratives’, JR 67 (1987), 183-202. • Barrett, J. E., ‘Virgin Birth’, BRev 4 (1988), 10-15, 29. • Bertrand, G.-M., ‘Les récits de l’Enfance selon Eugène Drewermann’, CahJos 42 (1994), 287-92. • Blomberg, C. L., ‘The Liberation of Illegitimacy: Women and Rulers in Matthew 1–2’, BTB 21 (1991), 145-50. • Borg, M., ‘Light in the Darkness’, ChrCent 115 (1998), 1218-21. • Bovon, F., ‘Die Geburt und die Kindheit Jesu: Kanonische und apokryphe Evangelien’, BK 42 (1987), 162-70. • Brown, R. E., The Birth of the Messiah (New York: Doubleday, 1993²). • Brown, R. E., ‘Gospel Infancy Narrative Research from 1976 to 1986: Part I (Matthew)’, CBQ 48 (1986), 468-83. • Cohen, J., The Origins and Evolution of the Moses Nativity Story (Numen Studies in the History of Religions 58. Leiden: Brill, 1993). • Crossan, J. D., ‘From Moses to Jesus: Parallel Themes’, BRev 2 (1986), 18-27. • Cunningham, P. J., ‘A Tale of Two Creches’, BiTod 37 (1999), 378-81. • Elderen, B. Van, ‘The Significance of the Structure of Matthew 1’, in Chronos, ed. J. Vardaman and E. M. Yamauchi, 3-14. • Feuillet, A., ‘Le Sauveur messianique et sa Mère dans les récits de l’enfance de Saint Matthieu et de Saint Luc’, Divinitas 34 (1990), 17-52. • Fiedler, P., ‘Geschichten als Theologie und Verkündigung: Die Prologe des Matthäus und Lukas-Evangeliums’, in Zur Theologie der Kindheitsgeschichten: Der heutige Stand der Exegese, ed. R. Pesch (Munich: Schnell, 1981), 11-26. • France, R. T., ‘Scripture, Tradition and History in the Infancy Narratives of Matthew’, in Gospel Perspectives, ed. R. T. France and D. Wenham, 2:239-266. • Frankemölle, H., ‘Die Geburt im Stall: Die Weihnachtsgeschichte im Widerstreit zwischen tiefen psychologischer und historisch-kritischer Auslegung’, Diak 19 (1988), 402-10. • Freed, E. D., The Stories of Jesus’ Birth: A Critical Introduction (Biblical Seminar 72. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2001). • Frenschkowski, M., ‘Traum und Traumdeutung im Matthäusevangelium: Einige Beobachtungen’, JAC 41 (1998), 5-47. • Fuller, R. H., He That Cometh: The Birth of Jesus in the New Testament (Harrisburg, PA/Wilton, CT: Morehouse, 1990). • Giesler, M. E., ‘Brown’s Birth of the Messiah … Revisited’, HPR 101 (2001), 16-24. • Globe, A., ‘Some Doctrinal Variants in Matthew 1 and Luke 2, and the Authority of the Neutral Text’, CBQ 42 (1980), 52-72. • Gnuse, R., ‘Dream Genre in the Matthean Infancy Narratives’, NovT 32 (1990), 97-120. • Hanson, J. S., ‘Dreams and Visions in the Graeco-Roman World and Earliest Christianity’, ANRW 2.23.2 (1980), 1395-1427. • Hendrickx, H., The Infancy Narratives (rev. edn. London: Chapman, 1984). • Hooker, M. D., Beginnings: Keys That Open the Gospels (London: SCM, 1997), 23-42. • Hultgren, A. J., ‘Matthew’s Infancy Narrative and the Nativity of an Emerging Community’, HBT 19 (1997), 91-108. • Kensky, A., ‘Moses and Jesus: The Birth of the Savior’, Judaism 42 (1993), 43-49. • Kingsbury, J. D., ‘The Birth Narrative of Matthew’, in Matthew, ed. D. E. Aune, 154-65. • Laurentin, R., ‘Approche structurale de Matthieu 1–2’, in De la Tôrah au Messie. FS H. Cazelles, ed. M. Carrez et al. (Paris: Desclée, 1981), 383-416. • Laurentin, R., The Truth of Christmas (Petersham, MA: St. Bede’s, 1986). • Legrand, L., ‘Angels’ Songs or Rachel’s Dirge: A Christmas Meditation’, ITS 29 (1992), 281-90. • Martin, E. L., The Birth of Christ Recalculated (Pasadena: Foundation for Biblical Research, 1980²). • Mayordomo-Marín, M., Den Anfang hören: Leserorientierte Evangelienexegese am Beispiel von Matthäus 1–2 (FRLANT 180. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998). • McGaughy, L. C., ‘Infancy Narratives and Hellenistic Lives: Luke 1–2’, Forum 2.1 (1999), 25-39. • Michaud, J.-P., Marie des Évangiles (CÉ 77. Paris: Cerf, 1991). • Mills, W. E., Bibliographies on the Life and Teaching of Jesus, Vol. 1: The Birth Narratives (Lewiston, NY: Mellen, 1999). • Moloney, F. J., ‘The Infancy in Matthew’, in The Year of Matthew, ed. H. McGinlay (Melbourne: Desbooks/JBCE, 1983), 1-9. • Moloney, F. J., ‘Beginning the Gospel of Matthew: Reading Matthew 1:1–2:23’, Salesianum 54 (1992), 341-59. • Mussies, G., ‘The Date of Jesus’ Birth in Jewish and Samaritan Sources’, JSJ 29 (1998), 416-37. • Nortjé, L., ‘Die Abraham-motief in Matteus 1–4’, Skrif en Kerk 19 (1998), 46-56. • Oberweiss, M., ‘Beobachtungen zum AT-Gebrauch in der matthäischen Kindheitgeschichte’, NTS 35 (1989), 131-49. • Parrinder, G., Son of Joseph: The Parentage of Jesus (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1992). • Pénicaud, A., ‘Lecture de l’Évangile de l’Enfance chez Matthieu (I & II)’, SémiotBib 98 (2000), 3-30. • Pesch, R., ‘Es wird Nazoräer heissen, Messianische Exegese in Mt. 1–2’, in The Four Gospels, ed. F. Segbroeck, 2:1385-1401. • Quarles, C. L., Midrash Criticism: Introduction and Appraisal (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1998). • Quarles, C. L., ‘The Protevangelium of James as an Alleged Parallel to Creative Historiography in the Synoptic Birth Narratives’, BBR 8 (1998), 139-49. • Riedl, J., ‘Mt 1 und die Jungfrauengeburt’, in Salz der Erde, ed. L. Oberlinner and P. Fiedler, 91-109. • Rochais, G., ‘La figure de Joseph dans les récits de l’Enfance selon saint Matthieu’, Cahiers de l’Oratoire Saint-Joseph 6 (1999), 21-44. • Rodger, L., ‘The Infancy Stories of Matthew and Luke: An Examination of the Child as a Theological Metaphor’, HBT 19 (1997), 58-81. • Schaberg, J., The Illegitimacy of Jesus: A Feminist Theological Interpretation of the Infancy Narratives (New York: Crossroad/Continuum, 1990). • Schaberg, J., ‘Feminist Interpretation of the Infancy Narrative of Matthew’, JFSR 13 (1997), 35-62. • Schille, G., ‘Die ursprüngliche Krippenspiel: Weihnachtliche Bibeltexte szenisch beleuchtet’, ZdZ 51 (1997), 236-38. • Scott, B. B., ‘The Birth of the Reader: Matthew 1:1–4:16’, in Faith and History, ed. J. T. Carroll et al., 35-54. • Scott, B. B., ‘The Birth of the Reader’, Semeia 52 (1990), 83-102. • Smith, D. E., ‘Narrative Beginnings in Ancient Literature and Theory’, Semeia 52 (1991), 1-9. • Stendahl, K., ‘Quis et Unde? An Analysis of Matthew 1–2’, in Interpretation, ed. G. Stanton, 56-66. • Tatum, W. B., ‘The Historical Quest for the Baby Jesus: Matthew 1–2’, Forum 2.1 (1999), 7-23. • Thériault, J.-Y., ‘La Règle de Trois: Une lecture sémiotique de Mt 1–2’, ScEs 34 (1982), 57-78. • Thomas, C., ‘The Nativity Scene’, BiTod 28 (1990), 26-33. • Tupper, E. F., ‘The Bethlehem Massacre — Christology against Providence?’ RevExp 88 (1991), 399-418. • Viviano, B. T., ‘The Genres of Matthew 1–2: Light from 1 Timothy 1:4’, RB 97 (1990), 31-53. • Vogler, W., ‘Weihnachten im Lichte der neueren Forschung’, ZdZ 51 (1997), 231-35. • Weaver, D. J., ‘Rewriting the Messianic Script: Matthew’s Account of the Birth of Jesus’, Int 54 (2000), 376-85. • Wright, N. T., ‘God’s Way of Acting’, ChrCent 115 (1998), 1215-17.

For Mt. 1:1-17

Abadie, P., ‘Les généalogies de Jésus en Matthieu et Luc’, LumVie 48 (1999), 47-60. • Alter, R., World, 51-52. • Bailey, N. A., ‘What’s Wrong with My Word Order? Topic, Focus, Information Flow, and Other Pragmatic Aspects of Some Biblical Genealogies’, JournTransTextling 10 (1998), 1-29. • Bauckham, R., Gospel Women, 17-46. • Bauckham, R., ‘Tamar’s Ancestry and Rahab’s Marriage: Two Problems in the Matthean Genealogy’, NovT 37 (1995), 313-29. • Bauer, D. R., ‘The Literary and Theological Function of the Genealogy in Matthew’s Gospel’, in Treasures, ed. D. R. Bauer and M. A. Powell, 129-60. • Bauer, D. R., ‘The Literary Function of the Genealogy in Matthew’s Gospel’, SBLSP 29 (1990), 451-68. • Böhler, D., ‘Jesus als Davidssohn bei Lukas und Micha’, Bib 79 (1998), 532-38. • Brown, R. E., Birth of the Messiah, 57-92. • Brown, R. E., ‘Rachab in Mt 1,5 Probably Is Rahab of Jericho’, Bib 63 (1982), 79-80. • Chazal, N. de, ‘The Women in Jesus’ Family Tree’, Th 97 (1994), 413-19. • Comerford, P., ‘Genealogies, Mythmaking, and Christmas’, DL 50 (2000), 552-56. • Corley, K. E., Private, 147-52. • Cunningham, P. J., ‘Those Shady Ladies in Jesus’ Family Tree’, BiTod 40 (2002), 184-88. • Dormeyer, D., ‘Mt 1,1 als Überschrift zur Gattung und Christologie des Matthäus-Evangelium’, in The Four Gospels, ed. F. Segbroeck, 2:1361-83. • Fauquex, J., ‘Matthieu 1: une généalogie à surprises’, Hokhma 61 (1996), 15-26. • Feuillet, A., ‘Observations sur les deux généalogies de Jésus-Christ de saint Matthieu (1,1-17) et de saint Luc (3,23-28)’, EV 98 (1988), 605-8. • Frankemölle, H., Jahwebund, 311-18, 360-65. • Freed, E. D., ‘The Women in Matthew’s Genealogy’, JSNT 29 (1987), 3-19. • Gillet-Didier, V., ‘Généalogies anciennes, généalogies nouvelles: Formes et fonctions’, FV 100 (2001), 3-12. • Graves, T. H., ‘Matthew 1:1-17’, RevExp 86 (1989), 595-600. • Hammer, W., ‘L’intention de la généalogie de Matthieu’, ETR 55 (1980), 305-6. • Hayes, C. E., ‘The Midrashic Career of the Confession of Judah (Genesis 38,26)’, VT 45 (1995), 62-81, 174-87. • Heil, J. P., ‘The Narrative Roles of Women in Matthew’s Genealogy’, Bib 72 (1991), 538-45. • Hempelmann, H., ‘Das Dürre Blatt im Heiligen Buch: Mt 1,1-17 und der Kampf wider die Erniedrigung Gottes’, TB 21 (1990), 6-23. • Hutchinson, J. C., ‘Women, Gentiles, and the Messianic Mission in Matthew’s Genealogy’, BSac 158 (2001), 152-64. • Jackson, G., ‘Have Mercy on Me’: The Story of the Canaanite Woman in Matthew 15.21-28 (JSNTSup 228; Copenhagen International Seminar 10. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2002), 86-99. • Johnson, M. D., The Purpose of the Biblical Genealogies: With Special Reference to the Setting of the Genealogies of Jesus (SNTSMS 8. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988²). • Johnson, M. D., ‘Genealogies of Jesus’, Forum 2.1 (1999), 41-55. • Jones, J. M., ‘Subverting the Textuality of Davidic Messianism: Matthew’s Presentation of the Genealogy and the Davidic Title’, CBQ 56 (1994), 256-72. • Légasse, S., ‘Les généalogies de Jésus’, BLE 99 (1998), 443-54. • Lerle, E., ‘Die Ahnenverzeichnisse Jesu’, ZNW 72 (1981), 112-17. • Levine, A.-J., Social and Ethnic, 59-88. • Masson, J., Jésus fils de David dans les généalogies de saint Matthieu et de saint Luc (Paris: Téqui, 1982). • McDermott, J. J., ‘Multipurpose Genealogies’, BiTod 35 (1997), 382-86. • Menn, E. M., Judah and Tamar (Genesis 38) in Ancient Jewish Exegesis (JSJSup 51. Leiden: Brill, 1997). • Mussies, G., ‘Parallels to Matthew’s Version of the Pedigree of Jesus’, NovT 28 (1986), 32-47. • Nettelhorst, R. P., ‘The Genealogy of Jesus’, JETS 31 (1988), 169-72. • Nolland, J., ‘What Kind of Genesis Do We Have in Matt 1.1?’ NTS 42 (1996), 463-71. • Nolland, J., ‘The Four (Five) Women and Other Annotations in Matthew’s Genealogy’, NTS 43 (1997), 527-39. • Nolland, J., ‘Genealogical Annotation in Genesis as Background for the Matthean Genealogy of Jesus’, TynB 47 (1996), 115-22. • Nolland, J., ‘Jechoniah and His Brothers (Matthew 1:11)’, BBR 7 (1997), 169-78. • Ostmeyer, K.-H., ‘Der Stammbaum des Verheissenen: Theologische Implikationen der Namen und Zahlen in Mt 1.1-17’, NTS 46 (2000), 175-92. • Overstreet, L., ‘Difficulties of New Testament Genealogies’, GTJ 2 (1981), 303-26. • Paul, A., ‘Matthieu 1 comme écriture apocalyptique: Le récit véritable de la crucifixion de ἔρως’, ANRW 2.25.3 (1984), 1952-68. • Petit, M., ‘Bethesabée dans la tradition juive jusqu’aux Talmudim’, Jud 47 (1981), 209-23. • Plum, K. F., ‘Genealogy as Theology’, SJOT 3 (1989), 66-92. • Quinn, J. D., ‘Is ῬΑΧΑΒ in Mt 1.5 Rahab of Jericho?’ Bib 62 (1981), 225-28. • Schaberg, J., ‘The Foremothers and the Mother of Jesus’, Concil 206 (1989), 112-19. • Shimoff, S. R., ‘David and Bathsheba: The Political Function of Rabbinic Aggada’, JSJ 24 (1993), 246-56. • Thurston, A., Knowing Her Place, 89-98. • Tisera, G., Universalism, 21-48. • Wainwright, E. M., Feminist Critical Reading, 61-69, 156-71. • Wassén, C., ‘The Story of Judah and Tamar in the Eyes of the Earliest Interpreters’, LitTheol 8 (1994), 354-66. • Weren, W. J. C., ‘The Five Women in Matthew’s Genealogy’, CBQ 59 (1997), 228-305. • Zeller, D., ‘Geburtsankündigung und Geburtsverkündigung: Formgeschichte Untersuchung im Blick auf Mt 1f., Lk 1f’, in Studien und Texte zur Formgeschichte, ed. K. Berger et al. (Texte und Arbeiten zum neutestamentlichen Zeitalter 7. Tübingen/Basel: Francke, 1992), 59-134.

Matthew begins his Gospel with a genealogy of Jesus which locates him firmly within, but at the climax of, the history of God’s dealings with his people. In brief compass Matthew evokes the glories and tragedies of that story in which the purposes of God unfold.

The genealogy appears to have been built up on the basis of the Greek OT, plus whatever traditions formed the basis for the names from Abiud (perhaps a genealogical record tracing descent from Zerubbabel or possibly Jechoniah?). More specifically the genealogy seems to have been built up around a core based on Ru. 4:18-22. This provided ten generations, and the pattern ‘A produced B’. When this ran out, the genealogist turned primarily to 1 Ch. 3:10-19, which provided sixteen further names which he uses (plus one indirect use, plus three which are not used). The first four names are so well known as not to require a specific source. Matthew’s biblical sources are handled in such a way as to indicate a good knowledge of the OT narratives to which the individual names are linked. There is no sufficient reason for tracing any form of the finished genealogy back beyond the author of Mathew.¹ And the theological views implicitly articulated may be taken as those of the author of Matthew.

The Matthean genealogy and the Lukan one (which starts from Adam, and even God, and is reported in the reverse sequence) have very little in common after King David. They meet briefly for Shealtiel and Zerubbabel, and then not until Joseph. Various attempts have been made at harmonisation, none of which is better than speculative.² Given the contradictions in OT and other ancient genealogies and the varied functions of genealogies,³ it is probably best to let each genealogy make its own contribution to an understanding of the significance of Jesus.

1:1 The total lack of definite articles, along with the absence of any verb, helps to suggest that we have here a superscription or heading. The scope of the text covered by the heading is signalled by the repetition in v. 17 (in reverse order) of the key terms ‘Abraham’, ‘David’, and ‘Christ’ (though indirectly this should be extended to cover vv. 18-25 since these verses are, structurally, an expansion and explanation of v. 16). It is likely that some influence on the wording has come from Mk. 1:1. If this is so, Matthew has deliberately chosen to trace the roots of his story further back than Mark had considered necessary (but not as far as Luke or John).

βίβλος is the normal word for ‘book’, and this fact has caused some interpreters to apply it here to the whole of the Gospel text. At least in Septuagintal Greek, however, it can also refer to a less substantial piece of writing, either a document in its own right⁴ or included within a larger whole.⁵ It is considerably more natural (given the link here with ‘origin’) to apply βίβλος to the genealogy bracketed by vv. 1 and 17.

γένεσις (‘origin’) is used here and in v. 18 and must be taken in a manner which can do justice to the link between these two uses.

Many have been struck by the use in the LXX of Gn. 2:4; 5:1 of the identical phrase βίβλος γενέσεως (but with the definite article). In the underlying Hebrew the phrase refers in 2:4 (‘… of the heavens and the earth when they were created’) to 2:5–4:26, spanning from the creation of Adam to the birth of a son to Seth; the use in 5:1 (‘… of Adam’) probably covers the genealogy of 5:1-32 with the appended material in 6:1-8. The Hebrew has twldt, which, fittingly, points in the direction of where things are going (derived from the verb yld, meaning ‘to bear’, it has traditionally been translated ‘generations’), but the Greek γένεσις points rather in the direction of origins. Almost certainly this indicates that the translator took the reference, not unreasonably but erroneously, as to the preceding materials.⁶

Since, before Matthew, γένεσις was established as the Greek title of Genesis,⁷ some have insisted on finding here an allusion to the idea of a new creation with Jesus. But, while a Genesis allusion is probable, its intention is likely to be less profound (use of a ‘biblical’ style?; offering another important account of origins?).⁸

This first use of γένεσις is concerned with the origins of Jesus in relation to the larger shape of the history of God’s people; the second use in v. 18 will focus on how Jesus gained his specific place in this history. It is quite possible that συντελείας (‘end’) in 28:20 deliberately looks back to γενέσεως in 1:1:⁹ Matthew’s story embraces the whole history of God’s dealings with his people from the calling of Abraham to the end of the age.

Matthew uses the name Jesus no fewer than 150 times.¹⁰ Is Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ here a double name (‘Jesus Christ’) or is Christ titular? In Matthew’s use the two alternatives are not as far apart as this way of putting the question might suggest. In v. 16 Jesus is ‘called Christ’ because he is deemed to be ‘[the] Christ’, as is clear from the end of v. 17 (cf. 27:17, 22). The phenomenon is similar to the use of places of origin or other descriptive designations in double names:¹¹ the etymology of the name remains important. Given the total lack of definite articles in v. 1, the lack of an article here should not be taken to exclude a titular use. The chiasm formed by vv. 1 and 17 favours a titular use. In v. 18 Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ is a double name, but after vv. 1, 16, 17 the reader knows how to read the double name ‘intelligently’ in relation to the title. The focus in the genealogy on the kings of Judah and ‘king of the Jews’ in 2:2 makes it clear from the outset that ‘Christ’ is being used in connection with some form of royal messianism. See the further discussion and background at 16:16.

While ‘Son of David’ can be a messianic title in its own right (see at 9:27), here nothing more than ancestry is immediately in view (cf. 1:20; admittedly the concern is with the appropriate ancestry for the messiah). ‘Son of Abraham’ takes us back to the foundation of the Israelite people in the calling of Abraham and the promises made to him.¹² Descent from him marked the boundaries of the people of God.¹³ Jesus is shown to belong to the people of God and more specifically to the royal line of that people.¹⁴ It is probably a mistake to find any hint of good news for the Gentiles on the basis of the wider reach of the promises to Abraham.¹⁵

1:2 The genealogy will now fill in the details of what has already been sketched in outline in v. 1. The story of Jewish history begins with Abraham.¹⁶ γεννάω can refer either to the father’s role in reproduction (focussing on the origin of life in conception but not excluding the larger process through to birth, and even at times carrying implications of the father/son link thereby brought into existence) or to the mother’s giving birth (and carrying comparable implications).¹⁷ It is also used, metaphorically, to express more generally the idea of causing something to happen. I have chosen the translation ‘produced’, though unfortunately impersonal and nonbiological, partly to provide a suitable counterpart to ‘origin’ (my origin can be expressed in terms of how I was produced) — no doubt Matthew intends the γεν of γένεσις to be echoed in the γενν within ἐγέννησεν — and partly to enable a stable translation for the verb through the various (linked) uses in chap. 1.

One cannot speak of the producing of Isaac and of Jacob without calling to mind the drama, the difficulty, and the involvement of God that stands behind the emergence and role of these patriarchs (see Gn. 12–27). In briefest compass we have in the genealogy an outline of salvation history which traces the line of God’s promise and the unfolding of his purposes, first in the founding of Israel, then in the emergence of, and promise to, the royal line, and finally in the flame of hope carried beyond the collapse of the Babylonian Exile. While the mention of ‘Judah and his brothers’¹⁸ calls to mind the origin of the twelve tribes (see Gn. 28–35 and further to Gn. 50), the specific role of ‘Judah’ here is to be the repository of the promise of the emergence of the royal line (Gn. 49:10).¹⁹

1:3 The mention of both the twins as well as their mother calls to mind Gn. 38 with its report of the subterfuge resorted to by Tamar to produce a child to be counted (according to Levirate marriage customs) as the child of her dead husband. The mention here of two sons, only one of whom will carry the line of the promise, and of a named mother may evoke as well (though these have not been mentioned) the tracing of the promise through Isaac the son of Sarah, and not through Abraham’s son Ishmael by Hagar, and through Jacob, not Esau, of the twin sons of Rebekah.²⁰ In no case to this point has the line been traced through the father’s firstborn.²¹ The ‘unnaturalness’ of this is likely to suggest the will and providence of God over against a purely natural development.

Tamar is the first of four named women in the genealogy (v. 5 has Rahab and Ruth; v. 6 has the wife of Uriah), or five if we count Mary (v. 16). There has been an extended but inconclusive debate about the precise reason for the inclusion of these women. Is there a single perspective from which each is included, and, if so, is Mary to be included under the same perspective?

It is notable that all the women are linked to men who are mentioned in the final verses of Ruth, listing David’s ancestors (4:18-21: Perez to David — the likely source for this part of the Matthean genealogy and for the pattern of presentation of the genealogy as a whole). This suggests that the place of both Tamar and Ruth in the genealogy is inspired in the first place by their presence in the book of Ruth. The link in Ru. 2:11 between Ruth and Abraham (the starting point for our genealogy), which is established by the echo of Gn. 12:1, may have had some influence on Matthew.²² The genealogical piece in Ruth starts from Perez for no better reason than the presence of his name in 4:12, where Tamar and Ruth are specifically linked: ‘may your house be like the house of Perez, whom Tamar bore to Judah’, a connection which at once reminds the reader of other more pervasive links between these women.²³ The tie with a restricted section of the genealogy should probably be allowed to count against any close linking of Mary with the other women. These women, though unlikely candidates for greatness, perform a vital role in providing for the line of descent for a clan/family of major significance in Judah. They have come for refuge under the wings of the God of Israel and have, in their progeny, received a full reward from the Lord (Ru. 2:12).²⁴

Jewish tradition (though the antiquity of the traditions is uncertain) may have a contribution to make to seeing why Rahab has been added to the list of women included in the genealogy. Jewish midrash finds a link between the crimson thread of Gn. 38:28, 30 (Tamar) and the crimson cord of Jos. 2:18, 21 (Rahab).²⁵ Prophets are said to have descended from both Tamar (b. Meg. 10:2) and Rahab (b. Meg. 14:2). 1 Ch. 4:21-22 is applied in Ru. Rab. 2:1-4 once to Ruth and her family and once to Rahab and her family,²⁶ which at least raises the possibility of some sort of identified equivalence of role. But perhaps these ties are not specifically needed. Rahab in her own way found refuge under the wings of the God of Israel (Jos. 2:8-21). What is more, her inclusion makes possible the evocation of the (exodus from Egypt and) entry into the Promised Land — a key phase of salvation history which otherwise goes unmarked.

What, then, of the addition of ‘the wife of Uriah’? Links with the other women are possible on the basis of the following. Both Tamar and Bathsheba produce children with a place in the genealogy who are in some sense replacements for those who fell foul of the judgment of God.²⁷ Jewish tradition identified both Rahab and Bathsheba as exceptionally beautiful women.²⁸ Later in her life Bathsheba acts decisively to secure her son’s place on the throne (1 Ki. 1:11-31) and thereby her own place in the ancestry of the rulers of Israel/Judah (as each of the other women had acted decisively to secure her place). As the wife of Uriah the Hittite (2 Sa. 11:3), Bethsheba is likely to be, like the other women, of non-Israelite descent.²⁹ However, the designation of Bathsheba in the genealogy, not by her own name but as the wife of Uriah, complicates the task of discerning the role of this inclusion. Does this warn us against finding too strong a connection with the other three? Does this throw the emphasis onto the taking of another man’s wife in the marrying of Bethsheba?³⁰ A positive answer to both these questions seems called for. The disorders even within David’s own family that threatened his own rule and placed in question the succession, which are reported at such length in the OT, were seen to be God’s judgment on David for taking the wife of another (2 Sa. 12:11-12). The mention of ‘the wife of Uriah’ is likely to be intended to evoke these tumultuous disorders, despite which, true to God’s promise (2 Sa. 7), the succession moves on to Solomon the temple builder. The allusion to this blot on David may well set up its own marker for the need in God’s purposes for something or someone greater.

The four women have been thought to mark the inclusion of the Gentiles in the genealogy of Jesus, as a way of anticipating the inclusion of the Gentiles at the climax of Matthew’s Gospel. Certainly each of the women may be thought of as a Gentile. But Ruth is very clearly a former Gentile who has found refuge under the wings of the God of Israel, and the same should probably be said of Rahab (Bathsheba may be a Gentile, but she is not introduced as the ‘wife of Uriah’ to make this point, and her own implied role is too passive to offer any real evocations of conversion³¹). Tamar is best seen as non-Israelite, but no more Gentile than Rebekah or Rachel (see n. 24). Jewish tradition, inasmuch as it has reflected on them, gives these women solid Jewish identities as proselytes.³² Their non-Israelite background may indeed be of significance (for three of the women), but they are very much non-Israelites who have become Jewish converts. No separate identity as Gentile Christians is anticipated here, but the possibility of shelter under the wings of the God of Israel may well be.

Scholars have argued that each of the women is notably a sinner: Tamar plays the prostitute to seduce Judah; Rahab is a prostitute; Bathsheba commits adultery with David; Ru. 3:4 (‘uncover the feet’ may be a euphemism for uncovering the genitals) may point to premarital seduction on the part of Ruth. Does their inclusion, then, highlight the grace of God, or does it offer a quiet apologetic in the face of accusations of illegitimacy in the case of Jesus?³³ But (as above) the ‘wife of Uriah’ suggests passivity on the part of Bathsheba and ‘uncovered the feet’, though likely intended to symbolise a hoped-for link with Boaz (cf. v. 9), comes at the wrong place in the story to suggest sexual union on the threshing floor (see v. 8). Jewish tradition as well as the OT and NT seems to exonerate or commend rather than accuse these women.³⁴

The women have also been thought to be linked, not so much as sinners but rather (picking up in part and in a different way on the sexual roles identified above) as indicating the production of children from unions with women where the union or the woman or both were apparently unsuited to the dignity of the royal line.³⁵ Tamar was a Gentile (but see above) and involved in incest; Rahab was a Canaanite and a prostitute; Ruth was a Moabitess and thus a product of the incestuous relationship between Lot and his daughters (Gn. 19:30-37), and she perhaps seduced Boaz to get him to marry her; Bathsheba was another man’s wife (probably also Gentile in origin). The production of Jesus involved its own marital irregularity (Joseph marries a woman who is pregnant with a child who is not his own). Again a quiet apologetic is possible — however unexpectedly, these are clearly unions whose fruit God has chosen to bless — but is there something more, as Schaberg suggests: a subtle pointer to illicit sexual activity in the case of Mary as well?³⁶ We have already seen that this approach misconstrues the role of Ruth and gives a role to Bathsheba that the genealogy does not, that it does not do justice to the positive estimate of the women in the tradition, and that it links Mary too tightly to the other women.

Levine³⁷ offers quite a different line in suggesting that the women represent people oppressed by dominant political, religious, and social systems, united in their manifestation of a faith which outstrips that of their marriage partners: ‘They were the ones who made history happen: they acted in order to secure their fate’. With only a little imagination one can see all four women as oppressed, though it is unlikely that any comment on systems is intended. It takes a special leap of imagination (or at least an appeal to a totally different phase of her life³⁸), however, to make Bathsheba a hero of faith, and even more so in contrast to David. Some contrast is drawn between Tamar and Judah, but no such contrast is evident for the other couples.

I conclude that, though there are important links between the women (much less so in the case of ‘the wife of Uriah’, and Mary is yet more separated), each is included primarily because of her unique individual potential for evoking important aspects of the story of Israel’s history.

The prominence in Judah of the clan tracing its descent from Perez is reflected in Ru. 4:12 (as cited above). The line from Zerah is marred by the sin of Achan (Jos. 22:20), but descent from Zerah was still claimed by postexilic Jews.³⁹ There was a clan in Judah which linked its ancestry to Hezron (Nu. 26:21). To this point all the names have been in consistent LXX forms,⁴⁰ but with Aram we first strike a complication. The Greek text of Ru. 4:19 has Ἀρραν (‘Arran’),⁴¹ while 1 Ch. 2:9-10 has the Ἀραμ used by Matthew (but the B text has Ἀρραν in v. 10).⁴² Matthew has adjusted the spelling for the Matthean genealogy after consulting 1 Chronicles LXX for the expansion of the core list in Ru. 4:18-22.⁴³ Nothing further is known of Aram (or of Ram, who may be the same person — see n. 42).

1:4 Aminadab marks the first point of disagreement (beyond spelling) between the Lukan and Matthean genealogies: in Luke 3:33 he is son of Admin, but Admin is probably an abbreviation or corruption of Aminadab, which has inadvertently been included along with the full form of the name.⁴⁴ Aminadab was the father-in-law of Aaron (Ex. 6:23).⁴⁵ Nahshon, the brother-in-law of Aaron, is called ‘prince of the sons of Judah’ in 1 Ch. 2:10. Numbers also portrays him as having the leading role in Judah in the wilderness period.⁴⁶ Nothing further is known of Salmon. The spelling of his name is that of 1 Ch. 2:11 LXX.

1:5 Rahab here is certainly the prostitute of Jericho.⁴⁷ The linking of Salmon with Rahab reflects an awareness in the genealogy of the place of his father Nahshon in the Exodus period. This is the only generation into which Rahab could be fitted in the scheme of the genealogy.⁴⁸ This tightness of fit highlights a historical difficulty in this section of the genealogy: the period of the Conquest and the Judges is compressed into the period covered by the mature years of Salmon, the lifetimes of Boaz and Obed, and part of the life of Jesse (David’s father).⁴⁹ See further on Rahab at v. 3 above.

For ‘Boaz’ the LXX has Βόος or Βόοζ rather than the Matthean Βόες, which has not been parallelled. Boaz is identified in Ru. 2:1 as ‘a prominent rich man’ (NRSV), but he is best known for his role in becoming the husband of Ruth (see Ru. 2–4). The linking of David to Bethlehem is rooted in the coming together of Boaz from Bethlehem (2:4) and Ruth, whose parents-in-law and first husband came from Bethlehem (1:1-2), and whose mother-in-law returned there after the death of her husband and two sons (1:19). See further on Ruth at v. 3 above.

For ‘Obed’ the LXX A reading of 1 Ch. 2:12 is reflected (Ἰωβήδ). Elsewhere the LXX uses ᾽Ωβήδ. Nothing further is known of Obed, but his son Jesse is found located in Bethlehem (1 Sa. 16:1). Jesse has a large family of sons and a flock of sheep, but no particular prominence in Israelite life (1 Sa. 16–17).

1:6 The LXX A text of Ru. 4:22 has ‘David the king’, but this may be a secondary influence from Matthew. The phrase occurs a number of times in the OT (e.g., 2 Sa. 6:12; 7:18). As with the women and the other noted intrusions, ‘the king’ once again breaks into the bare genealogical pattern. From v. 1 the reader is already aware of having reached an important point in the genealogy here. ‘The king’ confirms this and evokes the whole story of the rise of David to the throne and his subsequent rule. The next stage of the genealogy will be provided by the royal succession in Judah (Israel before the divided kingdom). Since messianic hope involved the reemergence of the royal line which had originally emerged out of Jesse, it can be expressed in terms of ‘the stump (or root) of Jesse’ (see Is. 11:1, 10; Rom. 15:12).

Here we reach the end of the mini-genealogy in Ru. 4:18-22; from now on the genealogist must go elsewhere for his sources. For Solomon to Josiah the most accessible listing is in 1 Ch. 3:10-15.⁵⁰ This is likely to be the main source, though the form of listing (‘… his son’⁵¹) is conformed to that based on Ru. 4:18-22.

The form Σολομών for Solomon is the common NT form, and the one used by Josephus. The LXX has Σαλομών occasionally and Σαλωμών (sometimes indeclinable) mostly (found in 1 Ch. 3:10). The united kingdom reached the high point of its glory with the reign of Solomon, who was responsible for the splendid temple in Jerusalem; but Solomon’s limitations also emerge clearly in the OT account (see 1 Ki. 1–11; 1 Ch. 22–28; 2 Ch. 1–9). Lk. 3:31 traces Jesus’ descent through another son of David named Nathan, probably on the basis of the perceived expiration of the Solomonic royal line with Jechoniah (see Je. 22:24-30). The two genealogies next meet with Shealtiel and Zerubbabel in v. 12. On ‘the wife of Uriah’ see the comments at v. 3.

1:7 The reign of Rehoboam marks the split between the northern and the southern kingdoms. He comes in for severe criticism.⁵² Abijah is viewed negatively in 1 Ki. 15:1-8 but positively in 2 Ch. 13:1-22. The spelling Ἀβιά is that of Chronicles (e.g., 1 Ch. 3:10); 1 Kings uses Ἀβιού (e.g. 14:31). Ἀσάϕ (‘Asaph’) is clearly an error for Ἀσα (‘Asa’), which is the consistent LXX name for this king (Josephus uses Ἄσανος). He is a good but flawed king.⁵³ Is there an accidental corruption, or a deliberate or accidental confusion, between Asa the king and the founding figure of a guild of levitical temple musicians (‘the sons of Asaph’)⁵⁴ who was considered to have been a seer and musician in the time of David?⁵⁵ Though certainty is not possible, a deliberate ploy to evoke yet more of the history of the people of God is not unlikely; this would be only one step bolder than the introduction of Rahab into the genealogy.

1:8 Jehoshaphat is described in glowing terms in the OT,⁵⁶ but Jehoram in quite negative terms.⁵⁷

The name of the next king in the list, Ὀζίας, seems to be based on a confusion of Ahaziah⁵⁸ and Uzziah — also called Azariah.⁵⁹ Ahaziah is normally rendered Ὀχοζ(ε)ία(ς) in the LXX, but in 1 Ch. 3:11 the B text has Ὀζεία, and A, V, and Lucian have Ὀζιάς. For Uzziah = Azariah the LXX normally has Ὀζ(ε)ίας or Ἀζαρία(ς). In 1 Ch. 3:12 the B text has Ἀζαρία, the A text Ἀζαρίας, and Lucian Ὀζιάς. Is the genealogy here, then, based on a Greek text which in v. 12 had the Lucianic reading? This seems likely.

The suggestion is often made that this (near) identity of names led to a visual slip, but it may be better to see it as offering a deliberately taken opportunity.⁶⁰ The role of the number ‘fourteen’ will be discussed below at v. 17, but here we can note that the loss of three generations of kings is necessary to achieve the required fourteen generations from David to the Exile.⁶¹ For a student of the OT accounts of the period of the monarchy, the jump might become almost a moral necessity once it was realized that the loss of the three kings involved would have the effect of (symbolically) implementing in Judah (implicated by the marriage of Ahab’s daughter to Jehoram) for three generations the curse that had been placed on the house of Ahab.⁶² Ὀζίας is, then, to be thought of as Uzziah, and not as Ahaziah.

1:9 The spelling Ἰωαθάμ for Jotham is a common LXX spelling, but not that found at 1 Ch. 3:12 (Ἰωαθάν, with Ἰωναθάν in A and Ἰωθάμ in Lucian). Jotham receives a favourable OT report,⁶³ Ahaz a negative one,⁶⁴ and Hezekiah an outstanding one.⁶⁵

1:10 Manasseh comes out very badly in 2 Ki. 21:1-18; 2 Ch. 33:1-10, but is retrieved in vv. 11-20.⁶⁶ Ἀμώς, coming in the place of King Amon, may be an allusion to the prophet Amos (Ἀμώς is the LXX spelling), of the kind suggested in v. 7. Here, however, the matter is much less certain since Ἀμώς is well attested as an LXX reading for Amon. At 1 Ch. 3:14 Ἀμώς is the reading of A Bc, with Ἀμνών in B and Ἀμών in Lucian. The evils of Amon are reported.⁶⁷ The LXX has various spellings for Josiah, including that here, which is found in most MSS of 1 Ch. 3:14 other than B, which reads Ἰωσ(ε)ία. Josiah, the reformer who found ‘the book of the law’, is commended at length.⁶⁸

1:11 1 Ch. 3:15 attributes four sons to Josiah: Johanan, Jehoiakim, Zedekiah, and Shallum. The first is otherwise unknown. The fourth (Shallum) succeeded Josiah as king.⁶⁹ The second (Jehoiakim) succeeded Shallum to the throne,⁷⁰ and was himself succeeded on the throne by his son Jehoiachin,⁷¹ also known as Coniah⁷² and as Jechoniah.⁷³ Finally, Jehoiachin is taken off into captivity (but with a continuing significance)⁷⁴ and is replaced by his uncle, the third son of Josiah (Zedekiah),⁷⁵ who was to be the last reigning king of the Davidic line.

What about brothers for Jechoniah? 2 Ch. 36:10 has the Zedekiah who became king after him identified as a brother. But this is either an error, or a use of ‘brother’ to mean ‘kinsman’. 1 Ch. 3:16 might identify Zedekiah as a brother of Jechoniah,⁷⁶ but it is more likely that the reference is to the uncle who succeeded him on the throne.⁷⁷ After the use of the identical phrase ‘and his brothers’ in Mt. 1:2, it is unlikely that we should consider a nonliteral sense for ‘brothers’ in v. 11.

The Greek OT does not alter the picture that we have built up, but it does manage to use Ἰωακίμ at times for both Jehoiachin⁷⁸ and Jehoiakim. The names ‘Jehoiachin’ and ‘Coniah’⁷⁹ are no longer represented in the LXX: ‘Jehoiachin’ is either ‘Jechoniah’ or (a second) ‘Jehoiakim’.⁸⁰

The Matthean text seems, then, to have difficulties on two fronts: Jechoniah is not a son of Josiah; and he has no brothers. Despite the possibilities for confusion that this rather complex situation opens up, it is hard to see how the person responsible for the genealogy thus far could now write ‘Josiah produced Jechoniah and his brothers’.

It has to be admitted that at least one text has become confused in relation to all this: the B text of 1 Esdr. 1:32 (ET v. 34) puts a Jechoniah in the place of Shallum⁸¹ as the son of Josiah who first succeeded him to the throne (in v. 41 a second Jehoiakim is named as the son of Jehoiakim as in the LXX above). This confusion in 1 Esdr. 1:32 seems to be exactly what we have in Mt. 1:11, but I find myself reluctant to use it to explain the Matthean text precisely because there is no clear anchor for the error in either the distinctive LXX usage or in the general complexity of the OT picture that would encourage us to believe that this was a repeatable error.⁸² The influence could even be, in the copying tradition, from the Matthean text.

The best of the solutions on offer in the literature seem to be those which involve textual emendation (unfortunately, without any text-critical support). Vögtle⁸³ argues for an original with ‘Josiah produced Jehoiakim and his brothers’. This leaves a gap between ‘Josiah produced Jehoiakim’ and ‘Jechoniah produced Shealtiel’ in v. 12. Such a gap was forced, Vögtle suggests, by the nature of the time expressions used to mark off the Exile as a significant turning point in vv. 11 and 12. The time of the Exile is best thought of as beginning during the reign of Jehoiakim: Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babyon arrives on the scene; Jehoiakim at first switches allegiance from Pharaoh Neco to Nebuchadnezzar but then rebels, and this is the beginning of the end (see 2 Ki. 23:34–24:4). Matthew’s putative original marks this well, but it leaves no place for ‘Jehoiakim produced Jechoniah’ to be fitted. The alert reader is left to fill the gap. But a scribe, alert in another way, filled the gap by altering ‘Jehoiakim’ to ‘Jechoniah’. He could support his move by recalling that the LXX frequently represents ‘Jehoiachin’ = ‘Jechoniah’ as ‘Jehoiakim’.⁸⁴

Vögtle’s view has two points of vulnerability. The first is obviously the lack of any trace in the textual transmission of the scribal activity postulated. The second lies in the claim that a period of exile beginning in the reign of Jehoiakim explains the failure to include ‘Jehoiakim produced Jechoniah’. It does not! Jechoniah was born well before Nebuchadnezzar appeared on the scene.⁸⁵ And while it may be true enough that the reign of Jehoiakim marks the beginning of the end, there is considerable artificiality in using Jehoiakim to mark the end of Davidic kingship.

What is clear is that the genealogy — if it is to keep to fourteen generations — cannot afford to have an extra generation marked here (so no room for a distinction between the generation of Shallum and that of Jehoiakim). In some sense the genealogy must mark the end of Davidic kingship with ‘Josiah produced Jechoniah and his brothers’. But is there a better way of incorporating this strength of Vögtle’s view?

We can recall how serviceable the (near) identity of two kings’ names proved to be for the genealogy in v. 8.⁸⁶ Could we have something similar here? In this statement the genealogist needs to evoke the end of the Davidic kingship, with the collapse of the nation and exile. Clearly this does all happen in a single generation since, although a grandson of Josiah (i.e., Jechoniah) reigns for three months, it is one of Josiah’s own sons (i.e., Zedekiah) who is the final king to reign over Judah. At the same time it is Jechoniah who clearly, in 2 Ki. 25:27-30, has some ongoing importance for the Davidic line.⁸⁷ How can all this be evoked?

We recall that in Septuagintal usage the grandson of Josiah is called either ‘Jechoniah’ or ‘Jehoiakim’, in the latter case using the same name as for the father. What about using a statement that creates a deliberate confusion between father and son? ‘Josiah produced Jehoiakim and his brothers’ would not achieve this since it would naturally be taken as a straightforward reference to the father. What about, then, using the other name of the son? ‘Josiah produced Jechoniah and his brothers’ is patently not true: Jechoniah is the grandson, not the son, and he does not seem to have had any brothers. The alert reader is set to ponder and recalls that this Jechoniah is also known as Jehoiakim, and that this other name is a name which he shares with his father. ‘Josiah produced Jechoniah and his brothers’ is a statement that clearly reaches the genealogist’s goal here in Jechoniah, while at the same time insisting that the Babylonian Exile came just one generation beyond Josiah.

In the statement, ‘Jechoniah’ is first and foremost himself, but secondarily a cipher for the father with whom he shares a name. The genealogist has contained his account of the period from David to the Exile within fourteen generations and has provided us with a rich texture of allusion to the salvation history of which his genealogy is a brief summary.

ἐπί + gen. does not mean here ‘at the time of’ in the sense of ‘during’, as it normally would. The whole phrase means, rather, ‘in the period in which the deportation to Babylon took place’. μετοικεσία is used of the Babylonian captivity in 2 Ki. 24:16; 1 Ch. 5:22; Ez. 12:11. The word means literally ‘transfer to another place of habitation’. But it intends to call to mind all the suffering and sense of tragedy known from the OT accounts.⁸⁸ No particular interpretation of the Exile is reflected in the genealogy, but no doubt it assumes a sense of God’s well-deserved judgment. This is no end point in his concern for his people.

1:12 μετὰ δὲ τὴν μετοικεσίαν does not refer to the restoration, but rather to the period after the deportation has happened. 1 Ch. 3:17 has Jechoniah, in captivity, as the father of Shealtiel. Elsewhere in the OT, Shealtiel is known only as the father of Zerubbabel.⁸⁹ 1 Ch. 3:19 MT has Zerubbabel as the son of Pediah, who appears to be a brother of Shealtiel,⁹⁰ but the LXX text reflects the otherwise uniform view. Zerubbabel came back with the initial wave of returning exiles to be the first Persian governor of Jerusalem in the restoration period.⁹¹ He was a focus of hope in the Davidic line (Hg. 2:23; Zc. 4:6-10), but this hope seems not to have survived in any significant form into the next generation. The Lukan genealogy meets the Matthean briefly in Shealtiel and Zerubbabel, but in Luke the father of Shealtiel is Neri (Lk. 3:27).⁹²

1:13-15 At this point we lose contact with the OT and also once more with the Lukan genealogy, which is interested in a different son of Zerubbabel (Lk. 3:27).⁹³ According to 1 Ch. 3:19, the children of Zerubbabel are Meshullam, Hananiah, and a sister Shelomith. Up to this point, however, Matthew has followed his sources responsibly, if at times creatively; there is no good reason to think that he will do differently now that his sources become invisible to us.⁹⁴ It must be said, however, that Matthew clearly has far too few names for the 500 years that need to be covered (Luke has nearly twice as many for this period).⁹⁵ Joseph’s grandfather is Μαθθάν in v. 15 and Μαθθάτ in Lk. 3:24, but since the generations on either side do not agree, this is likely to be fortuitous. If the replay of (mostly minor) biblical names in this section tells us anything, it may point us to a replay in the most general of senses, but in a minor key, of the previous history.⁹⁶ There is nothing to allude to the Maccabean period as having any special significance in the flow of God’s purposes.

1:16 A certain amount of Joseph typology will emerge below, so there is something of a happy coincidence that Joseph’s father should be named Jacob. With Joseph comes a notable break in the pattern, ‘A produced B’. The language created a detour around this pattern in a manner which would normally be considered a distinction without a difference.⁹⁷ But the breaking of the pattern is striking and produces a puzzle for the reader until it is resolved in the narrative of vv. 18-25. Joseph seems to be being denied the normal role in procreation, but without explanation.

The previous occasional inclusion of the name of the mother in the genealogy creates a precedent for Mary’s inclusion here.⁹⁸ One might expect her presence here to evoke some significant aspect of the salvation-history story, and so it does, but we discover what this is only in vv. 18-25. The name ‘Mary’ occurs in both declinable (Μαρία) and indeclinable forms (Μαριάμ). While there is considerable textual uncertainty, the NT probably makes no use of the declinable nominative for the mother of Jesus (the indeclinable form is common in other cases). On ‘called Christ’ see the discussion at v. 1.

1:17 On the chiasm bracketing the genealogy, created by vv. 1 and 17, see the comments at v. 1. A new γεν word is introduced here (γενεαί [‘generations’]) which echoes both the γεν in the use of γένεσις in v. 1 and the γενν of the repeated uses of γεννάω (‘produce’) in the genealogy.

For the fourteen generations from Abraham to David, the genealogist has had to count both Abraham and David. His list accurately reflects the OT materials. The next fourteen take us from Solomon to Jechoniah. The number is held to fourteen by the omission of three kings and the deliberate conflation of Jehoiakim and Jechoniah, but these are clearly justified omissions in his eyes. The third fourteen take us from Jechoniah to Jesus, and are achieved by counting both Jechoniah and Jesus. The genealogist probably does not consider this to be double counting because in counting Jechoniah in the second fourteen, he really had in mind Jehoiakim; this leaves Jechoniah actually to be counted in his own right in the third fourteen.⁹⁹

Where does the idea of patterning in fourteens come from? Many of the specific derivations fail because they have no real place for the number ‘fourteen’.¹⁰⁰ Fourteen days is half the cycle of the moon. If the genealogy from Abraham to David can be seen as the waxing of the moon, that from Solomon to the Exile can be seen as its waning, and the genealogy from the Exile to Jesus as a second waxing reaching a full moon with the coming of Christ.¹⁰¹ A recognition of a twenty-eight-day cycle for the moon is not, however, documented, and in any case the genealogies represent no clear waxing and waning. Waetjen¹⁰² finds twelve + two epochs of history in 2 Bar. 53–74, but it is difficult to turn this into three lots of fourteen. There is a pattern of three lots of fourteen in b. Sanh. 105b and b. Hor. 10b, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with history.¹⁰³ The idea of a fixed number of periods, years, or generations is common enough in apocalyptic texts,¹⁰⁴ and it may reasonably be considered general background for the Matthean scheme, but some account must still be offered of the fourteen. The recent defence by Davies and Allison¹⁰⁵ of the popular view that origin of the fourteen is in the Hebrew name for David seems to me to be compelling. The Hebrew name is dwd. That there are three letters may account for the three lots of fourteen, but much more importantly the numerical values (four + six + four) add up to fourteen. If the genealogist noticed this, and then discovered that there were fourteen generations from Abraham to David, he would be on his way. To discover, then, that the period of the kings can be rendered in fourteen generations would be a marvellous confirmation. We have no access to the source(s) to which he related to produce the final fourteen, but in some way he will have found that satisfying as well.

1. Apart from an eccentric spelling of ‘Boaz’ and a non-LXX spelling of ‘Rahab’ (which is related but not identical to the spelling used by Josephus), only for the spelling of the name of Solomon do we lose contact with LXX spellings, and in that case with the uniform NT spelling and that found also in Josephus. Distinctive features of the LXX text provide the basis for understanding aspects of the present genealogy (see at vv. 8, 11).

2. The most attractive involves the claim that Mary was an only child, whose father, on the marriage of his daughter to Joseph, adopted Joseph as his own child (Holzmeister, ‘Erklärungsversuch’). See Nolland, Luke, 1:169-70, for

Reviews for The Gospel of Matthew

[vanjr-1 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

It has been a while since I read this, but it is THE BEST single commentary of any book in the Bible I have ever read. France was fantastic. It focused on what the text said/meant and not on denominational or partisan opinions. I highly recommend this.