Matthew’s Genealogical Fourteens

Every student of the Bible at one point or another comes to certain portions of Scripture that create confusion, perhaps mixed with a tinge of boredom or imagined insignificance. One such portion is the genealogies found across the Old Testament. 1 This paper will examine in cursory fashion a smattering of these genealogies, giving attention to some general considerations of their form, how they function in a text, and conclude with a brief word on the purpose they serve. In so doing, the reader will grasp the importance genealogies play in societies in general and that of the nation of Israel in particular. It is easy to assign one allencompassing reason for the presence of genealogies in OT, but that would be reductionistic and ultimately unhelpful; genealogies are much more expansive and layered than most readers often assume.

Bulletin for Biblical Research, 2015

A handful of scholars have recently focused on the importance of “the deportation to Babylon” in Matt 1:11, 12, 17 and the determinative role it plays for understanding the author’s conceptualization of redemptive history. Others, however, demur. This article draws attention to three observations heretofore neglected in the discussion of what “the deportation to Babylon” might mean for appreciating the narrative’s theological setting, as well as interpreting the entire gospel: (1) an “interrupted chiasm"; (2) the precise meaning of μετοικεσία in 1:11, 12, 17; and (3) the enumeration of the generations in 1:17. The aggregate effect is to read Matthew’s genealogy in apocalyptic terms as an attempt to assert Yahweh’s covenantal faithfulness despite the chaos of historical events—namely, the exile that inhibits the path to fulfilling Davidic and therefore also Abrahamic promises.

Restoring the Missing Generation in Matthew 1, 2021

This paper documents the very curious case of the Gospel of Matthew promising forty-two names in three sets of fourteen names each while all Greek copies list only forty-one. After more than 20 years of research in Aramaic and Syriac Scripture and liturgical tradition, I came to the conclusion the problem came from a mistranslation of one Aramaic word into later Greek sources. That mistranslation led to the fact that the Joseph mentioned in Matthew 1:16 cannot be the same as the Joseph mentioned in Matthew 1:19. While the Greek terms aner/andros were accurate equivalents to the Aramaic word gowra, the loss of understanding Semitic culture and legal nuances therefrom led to the misunderstanding becoming permanent and widespread on the Greek side.

Summary: A brief look at the significance of certain numbers in Jesus’ genealogies and their immediate context. Key words: Matthew, Luke, genealogy, Jesus, 14, 42, Jubilee, ark, glory. Date: Mar. 2021.

“For those who study deeply into the Gospel text, Matthew’s prologue, contained in his first two chapters, is one of the most masterful pieces of writing ever presented to human eyes. The genealogy with which this prologue begins displays its full share of wondrous artistry, but so subtle is its turn that many commentators have failed to grasp the logic that it implies.”. Monsignor John McCarthy.

Summary: Jesus’ genealogies in Matthew and Luke are frequently dismissed as ‘irreconciliable’. Such claims, however, like certain defences of Jesus’ genealogies, are too quick. Matthew and Luke differ from one another, not because they are poor historians, nor because one of them provides Joseph’s genealogy while the other provides Mary’s, nor even because they are ‘theological genealogies’ (whatever such things might be), but because two individuals in Joseph’s ancestry (viz. Shealtiel and Matthan/Matthat) chose to be adopted/grafted into different family lines within their clan. Keywords: Matthew 1, Luke 3, genealogies, Jesus, Jehoiachin, Messiah, adoption. Date: Nov. 2019.

Abstract: this article is a complementation to the article “The Genealogies of Jesus”, published in Revista Bíblica 71/3-4 (2009) 193-218. This complementation has been done visually through four tables that provide enhanced clarification of the theses presented in the preceding article. It also contains explanations to a few minor questions, such as that of the two possible gaps found in Matt 1.1-17 and that of the observation of constant significant numerical intervals between the initial letter subgroups found in Luke 3.23-28, which may reveal the method used by Luke to assemble his genealogy.

Matthew within Judaism: Israel and the Nations in the First Gospel, 2020

As the title of this book suggests, Matthew within Judaism is a collection of specialized essays addressing key themes as they relate to the larger issue of the Gospel of Matthew and second temple Judaism. The sub- title further signals this dynamic through the word pair Israel and nations and echoes main concerns in recent Matthean scholarship. together, the title and subtitle problematize the bidirectionality of central issues in Matthean scholarship: Matthew’s Gospel within second temple Judaism, on the one hand, and Israel and the nations in Matthew’s Gospel, on the other. The themes to be discussed in the book relate in various ways to these narrative realities. As early as the writings of Papias, the Judaic character of Matthew’s Gospel has been the subject of considerable conversation. More recent generations have framed the matter in terms of the Matthean community and its relation(s) to late first-century Judaism. Though scholarly discourse has ebbed and flowed, there has recently been a steep rise in interest in Matthew’s Gospel understood as a Jewish text, and several monographs have already been authored arguing such a case from different perspectives. This renewed interest in understanding the nature of Matthew’s story and its socioreligious location within first-century Jewish settings may be contextualized from a synchronic and a diachronic perspective, respectively. In the following, instead of a more traditional survey of recent research, we shall sketch briefly what we see as the key components of these two contexts, the larger interpretive matrix in which the current study of Matthew within Judaism is taking shape. In other words, the aim here is to frame an understanding of the larger picture of how present Matthean scholarship is connected with both its own past and the current moment of New Testament Studies more generally for a more complete perspective of the field of scholarly inquiry into which the essays of this volume speak.

Bulletin for Biblical Research, 1997

Matthew directs his reader's engagement with the genealogy he provides by means of framing materials and the use of internal annotation. The omission of three generations of kings from the genealogical list (1:8) and the confusions involved in identifying Josiah as father of Jechoniah and his brothers (v. 11) can be shown to have a similar annotative role: by careful manipulation of the traditions available to him Matthew is able to use these apparent abberations not only to achieve his fourteen generations schema, but also to evoke significant elements in the history of the period covered by his genealogy.

Espaços - Revista de Teologia e Cultura (ITESP) 27 n. 2, 2019

throughout time the genealogies of Jesus (Matt 1.1-17 and Luke 3.23-38) have been interpreted specifically through harmonization theses and theses that include Mary. However, these theses possess a conjectural and artificial basis that creates unconvincing and unacceptable complications to a critical study. This article reviews those theses, pointing out their errors and incongruities. Subsequently, the author engages in a minute analysis of the genealogies. The result of the analysis is the revelation of new details and observations that lead to more logical, appropriate and enlightening solutions.