The Genealogies in Matthew
Nenya
All Saints Host, Ecclesiantics & MW Host
in Kerygmania
Sunday talks at my church are starting a series on the Gospel of Matthew and saying so has sparked an interesting tangent on the "What was the sermon about today?" thread in Ecclesiantics.
Apart from a vague "Oh, there's Ruth... that's interesting" I confess I haven't engaged in any meaningful way with these verses and would welcome the comments of shipmates who have or who, like me, realise there is more to them than I thought and want to know more.
Apart from a vague "Oh, there's Ruth... that's interesting" I confess I haven't engaged in any meaningful way with these verses and would welcome the comments of shipmates who have or who, like me, realise there is more to them than I thought and want to know more.
Comments
There's an apocryphal story about a Bible translator in an obscure aboriginal tribe who was discouraged because no-one seemed to be interested in the Gospel story. He left translating the genealogy last as he thought no-one have any interest in it: he was wrong, as folk said, "Wow - we didn't realise you were talking about a real person until now".
Interesting reasoning - of course by that reckoning Elrond and Voldemort are also real people.
The elephant in the room is the divergence of the genealogies between Matthew and Luke - starting with disagreeing over Jesus' paternal grandfather. I know the attempts to work around this but I dunno - they don't seem very convincing to me.
Matthew's is theological I think - we've got three groups of fourteen generations. Fourteen is twice seven, which is a significant number in the Bible, as is three. You can also see three fourteens as six sevens - and six is another significant number - the six mythical creation days invite a seventh to complete them - so is there an implication there that Jesus is the completion of six sets of seven generations? The completion of their function?
Did he read the stories in kings and think that's my great great... grandfather, or was it sufficiently remote.
Well, that's a reasonable argument for the suggestion that one of the genealogies (usually Luke's) is actually Mary's. I personally think that idea falls flat since both say Joseph explicitly.
I gave my hypothesis about Matthew's symbolism above. Threes, sixes and sevens. Matthew uses the genealogy to frame Jesus' birth as happening in a significant generation.
Yes I've often wondered that too. Perhaps the point is to emphasise the idea that he is the successor of David and the fulfilment of the promise made to Abraham, rather than it being about his biological descent as such.
I see - so then the genealogy would be there to indicate "the time was now right" rather than being primarily about Jesus's physical descent.
people of irregular sexual practices (rape, prostitution, and what can only be described as fake identity, twice) plus foreigners and at least one human sacrificer.
Both the gospels with the genealogies are also those with virgin birth narratives in pretty close proximity. So Matthew and Luke must have thought both were relevant for some reason.
Why would that make them irrelevant, especially in the context of that culture?
For the reason I have already stated.
They had explicit adult adoption and also family identity.
Obviously they are Roman not Judean, but if they aren't going "well Octavian isn't really a Caesar (Julian?)". Then that might suggest our chromosonal idea of a family trees rules might be more cultural exceptional than we think*. Matthew and Luke obviously thought it made sense.
I can't think of any roman genealogy so maybe it's not the same.
* If it's tied to land right claims then it kind of makes sense that you value acknowledged rather than real parentage. (And in any case the times it's safe to acknowledge the difference is probably rare)
If we assume Matthew and Luke went, we need a genealogy even if it's dodgy (either because of the v birth, or the Matt/Luke difference) would that support a more culturaly Jewish authorship?
If Mary's descent is actually given in one of these cases (and it might be--Joseph could be regarded as "adopted in" to her family line, and treated accordingly, esp. as the physical facts of the matter are explained right there), well, it suggests to me that God knew some of us would get hung up on the physical descent thing, and so he gives us that variant, too, coming probably through David's son Nathan. (Who is also born to Bathsheba, and isn't that interesting?)
There are also the possibilities that levitical marriage involves, as well as adoption. And women who had no brothers could inherit, and it wouldn't surprise me if their husbands were regarded as in some sense "sons" of their fathers-in-law, and carrying on his line. See Zelophehad's daughters in Numbers 27 and 36, especially verse 27:4: "4 Why should the name of our father be taken away from his clan because he had no son? Give to us a possession among our father's brothers.” The implication is that the dead man's family name would continue in some way, which in other contexts (levitical marriage) requires the woman's child to be legally considered the (grand)son and heir of the dead man. So a scenario like this, too, could account for some of the difficulties.
I know there are folks who won't be happy with a single discrepancy in the two genealogies. But that's a very culture-bound viewpoint, and not in line with the way most of the world thinks. Even if we assumed it as the only "right" viewpoint, it would be problematic because Matthew leaves out several steps in the genealogy (minor kings) which would have been perfectly well-known to all his Jewish readers, as they are listed and described in the books of Kings and Chronicles.
And I have no idea what Matthew is on about with his fourteens.
One way the translators do this is by utilizing traditional Native American naming conventions, which are quite interesting when applied to a Hebrew culture and Hebrew names. The traditional English name is put in parentheses and in smaller print to avoid confusion. So the beginning of the Gospel of Matthew—or rather the beginning of “Gift of Creator (Matthew) Tells the Good Story”—reads this way:
The genealogy ends with:
I can’t say the First Nations Version gives me new insights into Matthew’s theology with the genealogy. But it does help me “hear” the story, including the genealogy, with “ears” different from those I inherited from my own culture, and I’m finding a lot of value in that.
But I think that the parables shine, as does the Sermon on the Mount.
So far I’ve focused on the Gospels, so I can’t say about the epistles or Revelation.
I don't think they are named in the ot genealogies? (But Moses's mum is, so it's not impossible) they do all have birth narratives.
So when did they get added in. By Matthew, in the sept/school posters, Jesus?
Is it a coincidence we don't get ones that couldn't be derived from elementary ot knowledge?
I don't think I've seen anything taking it as a descriptive(or punning) name, but given her son gets visited from Sheba it would explain almost as many difficulties as it creates.
You'd be building a lot on a shaky foundation, when "just a name, and her dad shows up in a list" is probably more convincing, but I'm surprised not to have seen it (that I can remember)
I remember asking this of my pastor and the look on his face was priceless ... like he'd lost a shilling and found a penny.
The only way it's relevant is if we are speaking of Mary's lineage.
And since in Jewish tradition, you can only inherit Judaism from the mother's line or by conversion (Ruth), then this viewpoint makes the most sense to me.
AFF
And fwiw, my understanding is that the requirement that the mother be Jewish for the child to be considered fully Jewish post-dates the time of Jesus.
You're probably right about that bit.
Yes maybe adoption was a thing but you can't claim King David's DNA by adoption, so maybe it was a valid point of view for its time but Jesus' bloodline is still irrelevant to me unless we're talking about his Mom.
AFF
The importance placed on DNA is a modern western obsession. To judge the genealogies appropriately, you’d need to figure out what they’re trying to do in the constraints of their own cuktural milieu (establish Jesus’ claim to Messiahship? Show his ties to the ancient Judean kingship?) and then look at the genealogies based on that culture standards, not ours, to decide if they succeeded.
Tldr: descent is a cultural concept except when you’re concerned solely with the biological—which we aren’t, with Jesus.
I think this is an excellent outline for a sermon or lecture vis a vis what was the Gospel writer attempting to accomplish within the framework of the cultural norms of the time.
AFF
It is used once in the Lukan genealogy and twice elsewhere in Luke.
This is consistent with a Jewish Christian audience for Matthew for it a being a genealogy of the Son of David, Son of Abraham.
Luke makes no special mention of son of David and Son of Abraham in his genealogy as he wants to take the genealogy back to Adam, Son of God. There may be a similarity there to Paul's idea of Jesus being the New Adam "The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is* from heaven." - 1 Cor 15:45.
The Lukan audience was one where The Good News was taken to the gentiles.
Although the idea that the discrepancy between Matthew and Luke is because Matthew's is for Joseph's line and Luke's is for Mary's line, I do not find that convincing.
Genealogies usually exclude women.
The inclusion, in Matthew, of Rahab, Tamar, Ruth, and, "the wife of Uriah" (Bathsheba) presents a lineage that could be regarded as "God blessed despite the apparent doubtful morality", as people may also have thought of Mary. Mary was saved from public disgrace
by Joseph, and also by the revelation by an angel to Joseph in a dream.
The Lukan audience seem to be familiar with the lineage of another Son of God in the cult of Caesar worship
"He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,
the son of Heli..."
Yes. It's an attempt to resolve the differences in the genealogies, from a synoptic harmonisation viewpoint, but it does not bear close examination. There is overlap as well as differences.
I think it's much better to see them as part of the different theologies and christological emphases of the gospels.
The reference to David and Bathsheba and (NT) Josephs dream, shows that Matthew was well aware that he was claiming something not normal in the virgin birth. Which I don't think anyone on here thinks, but is the sort of thing that gets argued backwards on Facebook.
But "Uriah's wife" also must have highlighted the line tracing challenges. If we're following Joseph because of marriage then should we be entering Hittite territory? (Of course Solomon's conception was after the death of his sibling, so David makes sense in most ways). You probably do have a decision with Tamar (and Ruth?) but that makes so little difference.
I don't know what you are referring to in your "so little difference".
If you say that Tamars twins were inheritance wise the 'sons' of one of Judah's other children (which seems to have been Onans concern). Then you still get back to the Judah in one step.
If you look at Ruth, again Boaz is the second closest alive relative of her former husband. And that seems to be significant in the account (suggesting that the the first should carry the name of her deceased husband), but also means the family tree converges pretty soon anyway. Which is probably the point of the convention anyway.
I also think we have the Book of Ruth because great good came from disobeying the Deuteronomic injunction never to allow Midianites into Israel.