Wednesday, April 23, 2014

Two Sources on the Genealogy of Jesus

From IVP Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels:

GENEALOGY
A genealogy is the record of a person’s ancestral descent. While the word itself is not found in the Gospels (cf. 1 Tim 1:4; Tit 3:9; Heb 7:6), the only extended examples of genealogies in the NT are in Matthew and Luke and trace the ancestry of Jesus.

As Matthew’s and Luke’s infancy narratives differ  [p. 254] from each other, so do their genealogies: each has a different structure, (somewhat) different contents and different purposes, and each is located in a different place in their respective Gospels.

1. Matthew’s Genealogy (Mt 1:1-17)
2. Luke’s Genealogy (Lk 3:23-38)
3. A Comparison of the Genealogies


1. Matthew’s Genealogy (Mt 1:1-17).
1.1. Structure and Placement. Matthew begins his Gospel with a genealogy of Jesus. The title of the genealogy in Matthew 1:1 (which some have argued to be the title of the whole Gospel) hints at its overall structure, naming “Jesus Christ, son of David, son of Abraham.” The Greek biblos geneseoœs (cf. Gen 2:4; 5:1 LXX) is literally “book of genesis” or “birth record.” Matthew uses the same word (genesis) in Matthew 1:18, seeming to indicate that 1:18–25 is a closer look at the last portion of the genealogy. Similar to many OT genealogies, the cognate verb gennaoœ (“to beget,” “to be the father of”) occurs throughout the list. Matthew also uses the related noun genea (“generation”) in his unique summary statement (Mt 1:17). This summary statement, forming a bracket (inclusio) with the genealogy’s “title” (Mt 1:1), recaps its structure, naming Abraham, David (see SON OF DAVID) and Christ.

1.1.1. Three Fourteens. The most notable structural characteristic is pointed out by Matthew himself in 1:17: the names in the list are gathered into three groups of fourteen, with significant historical events placed at their junctures. Some have explained this structure as a mnemonic device, based on the number fourteen since it represents the numeric value of David’s name in Hebrew (d = 4, v = 6, d = 4). Others see only Matthew’s desire to make the list symmetrical with the fourteen names from Abraham to David. Some further explain the symmetry as having apocalyptic significance: history is in order and the time of the Messiah has come.
Matthew’s desire for symmetry is seen clearly by the fact that he has omitted the names of four Davidic kings from his second grouping: between Joram and Uzziah (Azariah) in Matthew 1:8 come Ahaziah, Jehoash (alias Joash) and Amaziah (1 Chron 3:11-12; 2 Kings 8:16–15:7), and between Josiah and Jeconiah (alias Jehoiachin) in Matthew 1:11 comes Eliakim (alias Jehoiakim, 1 Chron 3:15-16). It was not at all uncommon to drop names from a genealogical table (cf. e.g., Ezra 7:1-5; 1 Chron 6:3-15). The term son may refer to a grandson or a descendant even further removed (e.g., Mt 1:1), and the all of Matthew 1:17 is simply a reference to all of the names Matthew mentions, not a statement that his list is all-inclusive. For Matthew’s omission of four Davidic kings to be simply the result of error seems unlikely. Perhaps the best explanation for these selective omissions is that they were all cursed (note the curse of Ahab’s family [1 Kings 21:21] extended to the house of Joram to the third or fourth generation [Ex 20:5 et al; cf. 2 Chron 22:7-9; 24:22-24; 25:14-28]; the curse of Jehoiakim [Jer 36:30]; Jeconiah (alias Coniah) was also recipient of such a curse [Jer 22:28-30] but may be included since he appears at a key point in history).
A close counting of Matthew’s three groups, how ever, reveals the third to contain only thirteen sons (including Jesus), an apparent contradiction with Matthew 1:17. Some suggest that Jehoiakim, the omitted father of Jeconiah, is to be assumed; but such an assumption has no basis and, if accepted, would simply make the second group number fifteen, since Matthew is quite clear that Jeconiah–“at the Babylonian deportation”—is the dividing point between groups two and three (Mt 1:11-12). Some suggest placing Jeconiah first in group three and counting David twice—as fourteenth in group one and first in group two—since he is mentioned twice in Matthew 1:6. But if David is to be so counted, there is no reason not to double-count Jeconiah who is also mentioned twice (Mt 1:11-12). This would again result in fifteen sons in the second group.
Perhaps the solution lies in Matthew’s departure from the normal “begat” formula at 1:16. There he uses the passive (egenneœtheœ) rather than the active form of the verb with reference to Mary (ex heœs, “by whom”). Jesus is born of Mary (see BIRTH OF JESUS) and, thus, Mary should be counted as one of the (now) fourteen names in group three. Mary is only one of five women in Matthew’s genealogy; why should she alone be counted as a separate “generation”? Simply put, the other women shared with their husbands in the procreation of descendants and Matthew counts them and their husbands each as one generation. In the case of Mary and Joseph, however, Joseph clearly had no part in the biological procreation of Jesus; only Mary did. While Joseph is mentioned only as Mary’s husband (cf. discussion of textual variants in commentaries), he is still counted since he did indeed serve as Jesus’ earthly father. To the objection that Mary and Joseph were really of the same generation comes the simple response that, by his obvious omissions elsewhere, we know Matthew is not concerned with counting all the actual generations.

1.1.2. Other Details. Not only does Matthew omit names in the structuring of his genealogy, he also makes some unusual additions. Specifically, he mentions a brother, Zerah, two other sets of brothers  [p. 255] and five women. Along with Judah, the phrase “and his brothers” occurs in Matthew 1:2, perhaps because it was customary to speak of all twelve patriarchs together or because descendants from all twelve tribes were Israelites and would have an equal interest in the Messiah. Zerah may be mentioned because he and Perez were twins and their birth story testifies of God’s reordering of the usual selection of heirs (Gen 38:27-30). Matthew 1:11 uses “and his brothers” again, this time with Jeconiah, perhaps to signal the end of the monarchy and its father-to-son succession of kings.
1.2. Purpose. Recent studies indicate that only rarely do ancient Semitic genealogies intend to preserve strict biological ancestry; rather, genealogies can serve a number of purposes (even simultaneously), such as: to show identity and duty, to demonstrate credentials for power and property, to structure history and to indicate one’s character. The value of genealogies in the post-exilic Israelite society is illustrated in Ezra 2:62; 8:1 and Nehemiah 7:5. The omission of certain names in a list does not necessarily make the genealogy inaccurate nor deter it from accomplishing its purpose. Matthew’s genealogy structures (Israelite) history in a memorable fashion and rehearses royal Davidic lineage leading up to the birth of Jesus. Beginning his account of Jesus’ life with a genealogy is similar to the OT accounts of Noah and Abraham, which are both prefaced with genealogies (Gen 5:1-32 and 11:10–32, respectively).

1.2.1. “Son of David”. Matthew’s Gospel proclaims Jesus as king and from the beginning sets out to show that Jesus is heir to David’s throne. Matthew seems preoccupied with David, mentioning him five times in 1:1–17 (seventeen times total in Matthew; note the titular use of “Son of David” in Mt 9:27; 12:23; 15:22; 20:30-31; 21:9, 15; cf. 22:42). Furthermore, Matthew adds the descriptive phrase “the king” only to David’s name in 1:6, even though every name in the second group served in that capacity. The three parts of Matthew’s genealogy can be viewed in terms of the house of David: the first group being its origin and rise to power, the second group being its decay and downfall, the third group being its quiet restoration by the promised “Son of David.” The “king” theme is obvious in Matthew’s infancy narrative in 2:1–12 (see Nolan).
Jesus was the fulfillment of the messianic expectation of Israel, and Matthew’s genealogy presents his ancestral credentials. Indeed, in reporting the genealogy of “Jesus Christ,” Matthew makes the title “Messiah” (Greek: christos; see CHRIST) part of Jesus’ name (Mt 1:1).

1.2.2. Why the Five Women? Another unique feature of Matthew’s genealogy is his inclusion of five women: Tamar (Mt 1:3), Rahab (Mt 1:5), Ruth (Mt 1:5), [Bathsheba] the wife of Uriah (Mt 1:6) and Mary (Mt 1:16). The presence of women’s names is taken by some as evidence that Matthew constructed the genealogy rather than reproduce it wholesale from his (OT and/or public) sources. Although not com mon, the appearance of women in genealogical tables was not unknown (e.g., Gen 22:20-24; 25:1-6; 36:1-14; 1 Chron 2:3-4, 18-20, 46-47; 3:1-9). It appears, however, that the women in Matthew’s record do something more than specify clans or tribes by distinguishing children of wives from those of concubines. Several theories have developed for the purpose of the women in Matthew’s genealogy. Mary’s place in Matthew’s list has been discussed above, and it seems likely that the other four women are to be taken as somehow foreshadowing Mary’s unique role.
Jerome proposed that the four OT women were mentioned because they were regarded as terrible sinners so as to presage Jesus’ role as savior. Such proposals are unlikely, however, for while Tamar was a seductress, Rahab a prostitute, and Uriah’s wife an adulteress, it is not at all convincing that Ruth was promiscuous. Ironically, rabbinic references to these women are often complimentary. Furthermore, Mary, the fifth woman in the list, does not fit into the same category (cf. Lk 1:28-30).
Luther held that Matthew included the four OT women because they were foreigners so as to show that Jesus, the Jewish Messiah, had ties to Gentiles as well. Tamar was an Aramean (Jub. 41:1), Rahab was a Canaanite (Josh 2:1-14), Ruth was a Moabite (Ruth 1:4) and Bathsheba—not directly called a foreigner (and perhaps for this reason not directly named)–was “the wife of Uriah” who was a Hittite (2 Sam 11:3). While somewhat promising—and perhaps a partial motive for Matthew—this theory seems insufficient, again because it does not include Mary, who was not a foreigner. Furthermore, it appears that early Jusaism may well have accepted the four OT women as honored proselytes (Rahab and Ruth, Sipre Num 78; Rahab, y. Ber. 2.7, b. Meg. 14b, b. ZebahΩ. 116b; Tamar, b. Meg. 10b, b. Sot√a 10a, cf. Gen. Rab. 85.11–12, b. {Abod. Zar. 36b; Bathsheba, cf. b. Sanh. 107a; but see Ruth Rab. 8.1).
R. E. Brown recently put forth a plausible two-part explanation for the women in Matthew’s genealogy. Each had something odd or extraordinary—even scandalous—about her union with her male partner, and each played an important role in God’s plan (some by their own initiative and often at great  [p. 256] personal risk). Tamar took scandalous initiative in playing a harlot with Judah, and yet God chose the offspring of that union to bring about the line of David. Rahab, although a harlot, played an important role in the conquest of the promised land (Josh 2:1-21; Heb 11:31; Jas 2:25). Ruth, a forbidden Moabite (Deut 23:3), was married to Boaz at her risky initiative (to Boaz’s surprise), and their marriage eventuated the Davidic line (Ruth 3:6-14; 4:13-17). Uriah’s wife (Bathsheba) had an adulterous affair with King David and yet, using her initiative, God saw to it that her son, Solomon, became heir to the throne (1 Kings 1:11-31). Even post-biblical Judaism saw the work of the Holy Spirit (see HOLY SPIRIT) in these unusual unions. Divine intervention was certainly part of other marriages represented in Matthew’s genealogy (e.g., overcoming the barrenness of Sarah, Rebekah and Rachel), but since those unions were relatively without scandal, they are not mentioned. The four OT women Matthew does mention are those who best foreshadow Mary’s role as an “unwed mother” whom God uses in his divine plan. Thus, Matthew may well have included the OT women in his genealogy in order to head off criticism or slander regarding the unique circumstances in which Jesus was born. By their inclusion he is reminding his reader that God often works in unusual ways and through unlikely persons.
Somewhat similar to Brown, A.-J. Levine incorporates the central ideas of the first two theories into a new theory. Levine observes that each of the four OT women, while socioeconomically and religiously powerless, manifests faith when the men in their respective stories do not. Levine argues that the rest of the Gospel of Matthew continues contrasting the privileged, the elite and the leaders with the excluded, the despised and the poor (see RICH AND POOR). Levine herself notes that Mary does not fit the pattern established by the four OT women. In Matthew, unlike his OT counterparts, Joseph is the one who acts in faith. In this theory Mary and Joseph are contrasted with the examples of previous generations. The only textual evidence for such contrast, however, is the verb change in 1:16, and that applies only to Mary (see above).
M. D. Johnson has suggested another—perhaps more simple—purpose for the women in Matthew’s genealogy. The four OT women had been the subject of controversy in Jewish circles concerned with messianic ancestry. By the end of the first century B.C. they were actually glorified in the Pharisaic (see PHARISEES) tradition expecting a Davidic Messiah. Perhaps Matthew mentions them to show that, in every respect, Jesus fulfills the Pharisaic expectations for the Messiah. This proposal fits with Matthew’s ubiquitous theme of scriptural fulfillment and his argument against the Jewish leaders for their rejection of Jesus.



2. Luke’s Genealogy (Lk 3:23-38).
2.1. Structure and Placement. Luke locates his genealogy of Jesus just after the account of Jesus’ baptism and just before his temptation (see TEMPTATION OF JESUS) and public ministry. This placement resembles the genealogy of the tribes of Israel and of Moses in Exodus 6:14-25. Unlike Matthew, Luke uses “the [son] of” formula (cf. 1 Chron 3:10-24; 6:16-30; Ezra 7:1-5; in Luke, however, the word huios, “son,” occurs only once at the beginning and is assumed in the rest of the list). He also provides an unstructured, uninterrupted list of seventy-seven names (not counting Jesus), and traces Jesus’ ancestry backward in time from Jesus through David through Abraham to “Adam, son of God” (see Ezra 7:1-5). Not only is Luke’s list longer than Matthew’s, it also contains more names where the two lists overlap: from Abraham to Jesus Matthew includes forty-two names and Luke fifty-six. While Matthew has several uncommon insertions throughout his list (e.g., women, brothers, etc.), Luke makes only one parenthetical remark at the beginning of his list about Jesus “being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph” (oœn huios, hoœs enomizeto, Ioœseœph, Lk 3:23; note also the article is missing before Joseph). Other than these few unique features, Luke’s genealogy lacks the many peculiarities of Matthew’s list and is a simple, linear genealogy.

2.2. Purpose. The very different structure and placement of Luke’s genealogy from that of Matthew suggest different purposes as well. While Luke seems similarly concerned to show Jesus to be a descendant of David (Lk 1:27, 36, 69; 2:4; 3:31; 18:38-39; Acts 2:22-32; 13:22-23), he traces the messianic line through David’s son Nathan instead of through Solomon.

2.2.1. “Son of Adam, Son of God.” Even though no other known biblical or Jewish genealogy culminates in the naming of God, this is not to be used alone as an argument for Jesus’ divinity any more than it is for the divinity of Joseph and the others in the list. It is noteworthy, however, that Luke traces Jesus’ sonship all the way back to God immediately after his record of the voice from heaven declaring Jesus, “my beloved Son ...” (Lk 3:22). Likewise, after the genealogy Luke records the temptation of Jesus during which the devil asks Jesus if he is the Son of God (Lk 4:3, 9; see SON OF GOD). Interestingly, the only voices in Luke to declare Jesus to be the Son of God are angelic (Lk 1:32, 35; see ANGELS), demonic (Lk 4:41; 8:28; see  [p. 257] DEMON, DEVIL, SATAN), Satan’s (Lk 4:3, 9) and God’s (Lk 3:22; 9:35; cf. 22:70; Acts 9:20). While Jesus as the Son of God is more than a human ascription in Luke, his genealogy seems to underscore Jesus’ humanity and his ancestral credentials as God’s selected agent.

2.2.2. Universal Ministry. What is clear in Luke-Acts is that the Evangelist saw all peoples—Jews and Gentiles –as invited into a relationship with God through Jesus. The Jews were the vehicle by which God brought the savior of all humanity into the world. Luke’s point is not that all of humanity will be saved, but that salvation is equally offered to all of humanity. By placing this all-inclusive genealogy at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry, Luke indicates that the benefits of Jesus’ ministry will be available to all (Lk 24:46-47; Acts 1:8; 13:46-48; 26:23; 28:28).


3. A Comparison of the Genealogies.
Many of the differences between the two NT genealogies have been noted above. This section is devoted to a more pictorial comparison of the genealogies, with their potential OT sources, and then a discussion of plausible solutions for apparent discrepancies between the two NT accounts.

3.1. The OT and the Two NT Genealogies. Both Matthew’s and Luke’s genealogies contain several variations in the spelling of names. These come from variations in the practice of translation (and/or transliteration) of the names from Hebrew to Greek, Greek to English, and Hebrew to English, as well as possible scribal errors and corrections. Some have tried to explain Matthew’s rendering of kings Asa and Amon as Asaph (Mt 1:8) and Amos (Mt 1:10), respectively,  [p. 258] as an attempt to bring a heritage of wisdom and prophecy to Jesus. It seems best to understand the Shealtiel and Zerubbabel of Luke’s record not to be the same as those of Matthew’s and the parallel OT records since all the names around them from David to Joseph in Luke’s list are of different people (descendants of Nathan rather than Solomon). Levi rate law is the best way to understand the unique attribution of Zerubbabel to Shealtiel’s brother, Pedaiah, in the MT of 1 Chronicles 3:19 (cf. Ezra 3:2, 8; 5:2; Neh 12:1; Hag 1:1, 12, 14; 2:2, 23). Admin (Admin) in Luke 3:33 is often judged a corruption and duplication of Amminadab (Aminadab), but the accept able practice of omission of names from genealogies must be remembered (likewise for Luke’s “extra” mention of Cainan [Kainam] in Lk 3:36; cf. 3:37). Aram (Aram) in Matthew 1:4 and Arni (Arni) in Luke 3:33 are both taken to be variations of Ram in 1 Chronicles 2:9–10 (raœm in MT; LXX has both Aram and Ram; Ruth 4:19 LXX has Arann). In table 1 the English spellings are those used in the NASB. The OT genealogies referenced are found in 1 Chronicles 1:1–28 (and Gen 5; 11:10-26); 2:1-15 (and Ruth 4:18-22) and 3:1–17.

3.2. Plausible Solutions to Discrepancies. Why do Matthew and Luke’s genealogies differ from one another after David? Up to that point, the lists generally agree with the OT records. No biblical records exist, however, of the names between Zerub babel and Joseph (nine in Matthew; eighteen in Luke), and, if granted that Luke’s Shealtiel and Zerubbabel are different from those in Matthew’s, no biblical record exists for the names after Nathan in Luke’s list. These portions are problematic; but with this divergence after David, it becomes quite clear that Luke and Matthew are doing two different tasks. Four basic solutions have developed.

Julius Africanus (A.D. 170–245) proposed that both lists give Jesus’ legal descent through Joseph: Matthew giving Joseph’s natural lineage and Luke giving Joseph’s legal lineage (cf. Eusebius Hist. Eccl. 1.7). Africanus explains that Jacob and Eli (alias Heli) were uterine brothers (born of the same mother by different fathers). When Eli died childless, Jacob took the widow as wife to raise up a child in the dead brother’s name in accordance with levirate law (Deut 25:5-10). Thus, Joseph was Jacob’s natural son (Matthew), but the legal heir to Eli (Luke). Some feel this solution asks for too many happy coincidences.

Several modern scholars also hold that both lists give Jesus’ legal descent, reversing the roles of the genealogies in Africanus’ solution: Matthew providing Joseph’s legal lineage and Luke providing Joseph’s natural lineage. This solution struggles, however, against the more natural understanding of Matthew’s “begat” formula as indicating a blood relationship between Jacob and Joseph (Mt 1:16).
Annius of Viterbo (c. A.D. 1490), followed by Martin Luther and many today, understand Matthew as giving Joseph’s ancestry and Luke as giving Mary’s. It suggests that Mary was the brother-less heir to Eli whose estate would then go to Mary’s husband. Luke 3:23 is understood as saying, “Jesus, being the descendant (as it was supposed, through Joseph) of Heli.” If this were the case, however, it is strange that Luke mentions Joseph instead of Mary, since he everywhere else focuses on Mary in his infancy narrative (Matthew focuses on Joseph). Note also that Luke has some concern to show Joseph to be of Davidic descent (Lk 1:27; 2:4). The Talmudic references to a Miriam, the daughter of “Eli” ({ly bslym, y. hΩag. 2.77d and y. Sanh. 6.23c) are most likely not references to Mary the mother of Jesus since R. Eleazar b. Jose, who claims to have witnessed this Miriam’s torture, lived during the second century A.D. Tertullian (De car. 20) and a few modern scholars have suggested that Matthew gives Mary’s ancestry and Luke gives Joseph’s. Such a solution again strains the natural understanding of Matthew’s “begat” formula. Although H. A. Blair has proposed that the text of Matthew 1:16 be amended to read “Jacob begat Joseph, and Joseph begat Mary, of whom was born Jesus who is called the Christ,” there is no textual evidence for such a reading.

While Matthew and Luke each have somewhat different purposes for a genealogy of Jesus, both affirm the virginal conception explicitly in their infancy narratives and implicitly in the genealogies as well. A final solution to the intricate issues involved in comparing the two lists may never be found, but enough is known to show that the apparent discrepancies are not insoluble. The most important things to learn from these genealogies are not the names of Jesus’ grandfathers (Jacob or Eli or both), but that he is the messianic king by God’s providential working (Matthew) and that he is God’s agent, offering all the world salvation (Luke).


BIBLIOGRAPHY. R. E. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1977); W. D. Davies, The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount (Cambridge: University Press, 1964); R. T. Hood, “The Genealogies of Jesus,” in Early Christian Origins, ed. A. Wikgren (Chicago: Quadrangle, 1961) 1–15; M. D. Johnson, The Purpose of Biblical Genealogies (SNTSMS 8; 2d ed;  [p. 259] Cambridge: University Press, 1988); A.-J. Levine, The Social and Ethnic Dimensions of Matthean Social History (Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen, 1988); B. M. Nolan, The Royal Son of God: The Christology of Matthew 1-2 in Its Gospel Setting (OBO 23; Goüttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979); R. L. Overstreet, “Difficulties of New Testament Genealogies,” GTJ 2 (1981) 303–26; R. R. Wilson, “The Old Testament Genealogies in Recent Research,” JBL 94 (1975) 169–89. 

S. Huffman



NIV Expositors Commentary on Luke's Version: 

'Jesus’ Genealogy (Luke 3:23-38)

23-38 The age of Jesus is given in approximate terms. He might have been in his mid-thirties. “Thirty” might also indicate that, like the priests who began their service at that age, he was ready to devote himself to God’s work.

Both Matthew and Luke recognize the importance of establishing a genealogy for Jesus, in accordance with the care given such matters in ancient Israel. In their handling of Jesus’ genealogy, Matthew and Luke differ in several ways. (1) Matthew begins his gospel with the genealogy, thereby establishing an immediate connection with the OT and with Israel. Luke waits till the significant part of the ministry of John the Baptist is completed and Jesus stands alone as the designated Son of God. (2) Matthew begins with Abraham, stressing Jesus’ Jewish ancestry; Luke, in reverse order, goes back to Adam, probably with the intention of stressing the identification of Jesus with the entire human race. (3) Matthew groups his names symmetrically; Luke simply lists them. (4) Both trace the lineage back through ancestral lines that diverge for a number of generations from each other, though both meet at the generation of David. (5) Matthew includes the names of several women (a feature one might have expected in Luke because of his understanding and respect for women).

The significance of the genealogy in Luke probably lies in the emphasis on Jesus as a member of the human race. He implicitly contrasts the obedient second Adam, the true Son of God, with the disobedient first Adam.


The differences outlined above, as well as some problems of detail, are perhaps best explained, at least in part, by the assumption that the legal line of Jesus is traced in Matthew, the actual line of descent in Luke. The widow of a childless man could marry his brother so that a child of the second marriage could legally be considered as the son of the deceased man in order to perpetuate his name. In a genealogy the child could be listed under his natural or his legal father. Joseph is listed as the son of Heli in Luke but as the son of Jacob in Matthew. On the levirate marriage theory, Heli and Jacob may have been half-brothers, with the same mother but fathers of different names. Perhaps Heli died and Jacob married his widow. Or alternately, it is possible that Jacob died without leaving any children of his own and thus his nephew, a son of his brother Heli (i.e., Joseph), became his heir.

No comments:

Post a Comment