E E E the editor by 1 Ch 35. For the insertion of a woman's name, see on v.1. Ovpelov is the Septuagintal form. 7, 8. And Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asaph; and Asaph begat Joshaphat; and Joshaphat begat Joram.] Cf. 1 Ch 310. 11-Aẞia] LXX A B has 'Aßeá, Luc. 'Aßiá. Josephus ABías. Aoáp] In 1 Ch. LXX A B Luc. has 'Aoá, Josephus "Agavos. But 'Arap is a Septuagintal form. See Burkitt, Evangelion Da-Mepharreshe, 203. 'Iwoapár and 'Iwpáμ are Septuagintal forms. Josephus has ̓Ιωσάφατος and Ἰώραμος. 8, 9. And Joram begat Ozias; and Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Ahaz; and Ahaz begat Hezekias.] Cf. 1 Ch 311. 12. Joram begat Ozias. Commentators usually note that Mt. has here omitted three kings, Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah. But this is not the case. I Ch 311 records that 'Olea was the son of Joram. That is to say, Mt. follows the LXX of the Chronicles. Mt. continues: Οξείας δὲ ἐγέννησε τὸν Ἰωάθαμ. The Chronicler LXX has 'Iwas viòs avrov, 'Aμaoías viòs avrov, 'AÇapıà viòs avtoû, Ἰωαθὰν υἱὸς αὐτοῦ. That is to say, Mt. has omitted not Ahaziah ='Oleías, Joash, and Amaziah, but Joash, Amaziah, and Azariah = Uzziah. The reason must be sought in 1 Ch 3" LXX. The son of Joram is there called 'Očetά. Now for Ahaziah the LXX generally has Οχοζείας, whilst Οξειά is generally the equivalent of Uzziah, e.g. 2 Ch 263ff.. 'Oetá in 1 Ch 311 is possibly a mistake. Mt. as he copied it seems naturally enough to have connected it with Uzziah, and so to have passed on to this king's son, Jotham, thus omitting unconsciously the three intervening kings. Or the copy of the LXX which he followed may have made the omission for the same reason.-'Oeías] The Septuagintal forms are 'O¿eά, B; 'Oğías, A Luc.-'Iwadau] The LXX A B has 'Iwafáv, but Luc. 'Iw0au.-Axac] The LXX A B has "Axas, but Luc. "Axağ. Εζεκίας is the LXX form. 10. And Hezekiah begat Manasseh; and Manasseh begat Amos; and Amos begat Josiah.]-Mavaσons] So LXX, Josephus. —Ἰωσείας] LXX A B has Ἰωσειά, but Luc. Ἰωσίας ; so Josephus. Αμώς] LXX B has ̓Αμνών, Al Bab ̓Αμώς. Josephus, "Αμωσος οι Αμμών. E 11. And Josiah begat Jechoniah and his brethren, at the time of the captivity into Babylon.] καὶ τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς αὐτοῦ is inserted because in 1 Ch 315 the names of the brethren of Jehoiakim are recorded just as the same words occur in v.2, because the brethren of Judah are registered in 1 Ch 21. The verse as it stands gives rise to great difficulties, because Jehoiakim has been omitted. But the text must be corrupt. As it stands there are only thirteen names in the third division, beginning with Salathiel. And this is impossible in view of v.17. If we suppose that Ἰεχονίαν in v.ui is a corruption for Ἰωακείμ, everything is plain. The κai Toùs adeλpous is then due to 1 Ch 315, where the names of Jehoiakim's brethren are given.—¿πì rηs μετοικεσίας] μετοικεσία, a rare word. It occurs ten times in the LXX, besides only Anth. P. 7. 731. The mention of the Captivity closes the second division of the genealogy. In the generation of Jechoniah the family lost the royal power to which it had risen in the person of David. 12. And after the captivity into Babylon, Jechoniah begat Sala- E thiel.] From 1 Ch 317. 12, 13. And Salathiel begat Zorobabel; and Zorobabel begat E Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim.] In 1 Ch 319 the Hebrew represents Zerubbabel as the son of Pedaiah. But the LXX B A gives καὶ υἱοὶ Σαλαθιήλ Ζοροβάβελ, κ.τ.λ. The editor is therefore clearly using the LXX. It seems clear that up to this point the editor has been using the LXX of 1 Ch 1-3. For (1) the names are given in the forms of the LXX. The only apparent exceptions are 'Arap and 'Paxáß. The latter does not occur in 1 Ch 1-3, and the editor substitutes a traditional form for the 'Paáß of the LXX. (2) Several of the details in Mt. are explained by his use of the LXX of 1 Ch., e.g. (a) 'Iakúß, v.2. So LXXI Ch 184, Heb. Ν. (3) Ἰωρὰμ δὲ ἐγέννησε τὸν Οζίαν (v.). So LXX I Ch 311. (c) Σαλαθιήλ δὲ ἐγέννησε τὸν Ζοροβάβελ (ν.13). So LXX 1 Ch 319. Other details in the genealogy point to a use of 1 Ch. but not necessarily of the LXX version, e.g. (a) Kai Toùs ἀδελφοὺς αὐτοῦ (v.2), is explained by 1 Ch_21. 2; (6) καὶ τὸν Ζαρὰ ἐκ τῆς Θάμαρ (ν.3), by reference to i Ch 24; (c) καὶ τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς avrov (v.11), by reference to 1 Ch 315. For the names which follow, the editor is dependent on other information. 13, 14. And Eliakim begat Azor; and Azor begat Sadok; and E Sadok begat Acheim; and Acheim begat Eliud.] 15. And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; E and Matthan begat Jacob.] 16. And Jacob begat Joseph. Joseph, to whom was espoused E Mary a virgin, begat Jesus, who is called Christ.] Thus ends the third division of the genealogy. The family now regained in the Christ, the anointed King, the sovereignty which it had won in David and lost at the Captivity. There is no sufficient ground for supposing that the genealogy ever existed apart from the Gospel. The references to Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, Bathsheba, can only be explained as due to the editor of the Gospel, who saw in the life histories of these women a divine overruling of history from which a right understanding of Mary's virginity might be drawn. Of course these references might have been inserted by the editor of the Gospel in a genealogy which he found ready made to his hand. But the artificial arrangement into three E groups of fourteen names reminds us of the not infrequent predilection for arrangements in three which runs through the entire work. Cf. the following: three incidents of Christ's childhood, ch. 2; three incidents prior to His ministry, 3-411; three temptations, 41-11; threefold interpretation of "do not commit murder," v.22; three illustrations of "righteousness," 61-18; three prohibitions, 619-76; three injunctions, 77-27; three miracles of healing, 81-15; three miracles of power, 823-98; three complaints of His adversaries, 91-17; threefold answer to question about fasting, 914-17; three incidents illustrating the hostility of the Pharisees, 12; three parables of sowing, 131-32; three sayings about "little ones," ch. 18; three parables of prophecy, 2128-2214; three parables of warning, 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, éyévvnσe throughout the genealogy denotes legal, not physical descent. He had before him two traditional facts-(a) that Christ was born of a Virgin in a supernatural manner, (b) that He was the Messiah, i.e. the Son of David. How could a Jewish Christian, indeed how could anyone, reconcile these facts otherwise than by supposing that Mary's husband was the legal father of Christ? So non-natural a sense of fatherhood may seem strange to us, but the fact of the supernatural birth which gave rise to it is stranger. Whatever we may think of it, this was the belief of the editor of the Gospel; so that there is no ground for the widespread opinion that the existence of a genealogy of Christ is proof of an underlying belief that He was the natural son of Joseph and Mary. If the editor simply tried to give expression to the two facts which had come down to him by tradition-the fact of Christ's supernatural birth, and the fact that He was the Davidic Messiah, and did not attempt a logical synthesis of them, who shall blame him? 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. Aavelo] So ABCD al. The LXX has Aaveld or Aavid; Josephus Δανίδης οι Δαβίδης.—'Αβραάμ] So LXX. Josephus has "Αβραμος, Αβράμης (once), 'Αβραάμ rarely. 2. 'Ioaák] So LXX. Josephus "Iσakos.-'Iaкws] So LXX. Josephus Ιάκωβος. —Ἰσαὰκ δέ] Om. δέ here and throughout S12. 3. Ἰούδας] LXX has Ἰουδάς or 'Ιουδά. In 1 Ch_21 Ιουδά, Β ; Ἰούδας, Luc.; 'Ioudas, Josephus.-Zapá] B Ox Zapé, LXX Zapá, Josephus Zápagos or Εξελούς. — Φαρές] So LXX; Josephus Φάρεσος. Εσρώμ] LXX has Εσρώμ (not B), Εσερών, Εσρών, Εζρών, Αρσών. In 1 Ch_25 Αρσών, Β ; Εσρών, Ba? b? mg; 'Eopúμ, A Luc. In 1 Ch_29 Εσερών, Β ; Εσρών, Bab; Εσρώμ, A Luc.-'Apáμ] In 1 Ch 29 LXX B has 'Apáμ; in v. 'Appáv, but A Luc. Αράμ. 10 4. ̓Αμιναδάβ, Ν C al; ̓Αμειναδάβ, Β. Δ. In 1 Ch 210 LXX B has Αμιναδάβ, A Luc. 'Αμιναδάβ, Josephus 'Αμιναδαβος.—Ναασσών] So LXX. -Zaλuwv] In 1 Ch 211 Heb. has D, LXX B Luc. Zaλμúv, Ã Zaλμáv. 5. Boto]B Oxk; Boós, C 33; Boós, EK al; LXX has Boós, Boot. In 1 Chr 211.12 B Boós, A Luc. Boos, Josephus Bóaços, Bowns.-Paxáẞ] LXX 'Ραάβ, Josephus 'Ραάβη, Ραχάβη. —Ἰωβήδ] Ν Β Ox ; Ωβήδ, ΕΚαι; LXX has Ωβήδ, Ἰωβήδ (Α). In i Ch_212. 18 Β Luc. Ωβήδ, Α Ιωβήδ, Josephus 'phons.-Poue] So LXX; Josephus 'Poúon.-'Ieoσal] So LXX; Josephus Ιεσσαίος. 6. Σολομῶνα] LXX has Σαλωμών, Σαλομών, Σαλωμώ, Σολομών (A). In 1 Ch 3ο Σαλωμών, Luc. Σαλομών, Josephus Σολομών. Οὐρείου] Β Οπ. 7. Posodu] So LXX; Josephus 'Poßoaμos.-'Aßid] LXX 'Aßeiά, 'Aßid; Josephus 'ABias.-'Aoáp] BCD luc Ox. i. 209, 543, 700, k al. LXX has Ασά, Josephus "Ασανος. 8. Ἰωσαφάτ] LXX Ἰωσαφάτ, Ἰωσαφάθ. In 1 Ch_310 Ιωσαφάτ, Josephus Ἰωσάφατος. -Ιωράμ] SoLXX;Josephus Ἰώραμος. — Οξείαν] S has “Ahazia ; Ahazia begat Joash; Joash begat Amozia." So Aphr. 9. Οξείας] * B*; LXX has Οξειά, Οξιά, Οξείας, Οξίας. In 1 Ch 311 'Ocela, B; 'Ofiás, A Luc.; Josephus 'Ocias.-'Iwabáμ] So LXX; Josephus Ιωάθαμος, Ἰωθάμης, Ιωνάθης.—"Αχαζ] LXX has "Αχαζ, Αχας. In i Ch 313 Axas, AB "Axas, Luc. Josephus Axatos.-'Eğeκias] So LXX, Josephus. 10. ̓Αμώς, BCD luc Ox; LXX 'Αμνών, ̓Αμμών, ̓Αμώς. In i Ch 314 B has 'Auvov, Bab Alt vel forte a ̓Αμώς, Luc. ̓Αμών, Josephus ̓Αμμών, Αμωσος. 11. 'Iwoelas] NBD lue; LXX has 'Iwoelas, 'Iwoías; Josephus 'Iwoias.— τὸν Ιεχονίαν] We must read here τὸν Ἰωακεὶμ καὶ τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς αὐτοῦ. Ἰωακεὶμ δὲ ἐγέννησε τὸν Ιεχονίαν ἐπὶ τῆς μετοικεσίας Βαβυλῶνος. So substantially M U al S4 S5 with asterisk. 12. Σαλαθιήλ] So LXX; Josephus Σαλαθίηλος.-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: 'Iaxwß dè èyévvnoe TÒV Ἰωσὴφ τὸν ἄνδρα Μαρίας ἐξ ἧς ἐγεννήθη Ἰησοῦς ὁ λεγόμενος Χριστός. Besides this there is a second reading: Ἰακὼβ δὲ ἐγέννησε τὸν Ἰωσὴφ ᾧ μνηστευθεῖσα παρθένος Μαριὰμ ἐγέννησε Ἰησοῦν τὸν λεγόμενον Χριστόν. This is the reading of the Ferrar group, 346, 556, 826, 828. So S2 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, S1 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 S2 is derived from it. In this last point he is no doubt right. S2 is, as a whole, dependent on S1, and it is therefore probable that S has the earlier reading here. But it is questionable whether S1 does not represent a Greek text found nowhere else (not in the Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila; see Burkitt, p. 265), namely, Ἰακὼβ δὲ ἐγέννησε τὸν Ἰωσήφ. Ἰωσὴφ δὲ ᾧ μνηστευθεῖσα ἦν Μαριὰμ παρθένος ἐγέννησε Ἰησοῦν τὸν λεγόμενον Χριστόν. Burkitt objects that the practice of the writer is to interpose no words between the name and the verb éyévvnoe, so that the clause & μvnoтevbeiσa raр0. M. ought to follow the first mention of Joseph, not the second." But the relative clause is clearly required in close connection with éyévvŋoe 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 S1 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 S2 of a second relative, "she who," as a subject to ἐγέννησε. The third, the substitution of τὸν ἄνδρα Μαρίας for ᾧ μνηστευθεῖσα Μ. παρθένος by assimilation to v.19 ὁ ἀνὴρ αὐτῆς, ἀνήρ 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. PI. 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.] yéveσLS here means birth, begetting, as in Gn 3118, Ru 211, Lk 114; cf. also |