Jesus’ Genealogy (Matt 1:2-17) (Prof. Doane)

The birth of Jesus is the culmination of the history of Israel (Zhodi Angami, “The Heavenly Canopy: A Reader-response Approach to Matthew’s Infancy NarrativefromtheTribalContextofNorth-EastIndia,”(Ph.D.diss.,MelbourneSchoolofTheology, 2012), 123; Ulrich Luz, Matthew 1-7: A Commentary (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007), 88 and Daniel Marguerat, Jésus et Matthieu: À la recherche du Jésus de l’histoire (Genève: Labor et Fides, 2016), 164). However, this number of generations does not match the immediately preceding list in Matt 1:2-16. In antiquity, commentators such as Hilary of Poitiers had already observed this discrepancy. Following patristic hermeneutics, Hilary of Poitiers understood the contradiction in the text (Hilary of Poitiers, Commentary on Matthew (Washington DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2012), 42–43).

Counting Generations

Without counting the wife of Uriah and the brothers of Jeconiah, there are fourteengenerationsandfifteennamesfromDavidtothedeportation,whichareas follows (again, the number on the left denotes the number of generations): 1. ΔαυὶδδὲἐγέννησεντὸνΣολομῶναἐκτῆςτοῦΟὐρίου[DavidfatheredSolomon by Uriah’s wife], 2. Σολομὼνδὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ῥοβοάμ [Solomon was the father of fathered Rehoboam], 3. Ῥοβοὰμδὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἀβιά [Rehoboam fathered Abijah], 4. Ἀβιὰ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἀσάφ [Abijah fathered Asa], 5. Ἀσὰφδὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἰωσαφάτ [Asa fathered Jehoshaphat], 6. Ἰωσαφὰτδὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἰωράμ [Jehoshaphat fathered Joram], 7. Ἰωρὰμδὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ὀζίαν [Joram fathered Uzziah], 8. Ὀζίας δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἰωαθάμ [Uzziah fathered Jotham], 9. Ἰωαθὰμδὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἀχάζ [Jotham fathered Ahaz], 10. Ἀχὰζδὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἑζεκίαν [Ahaz fathered Hezekiah], 11. Ἑζεκίας δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Μανασσῆ [Hezekiah fathered Manasseh], 12. Μανασσῆςδὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἀμώς [Manasseh fathered Amon], 13. Ἀμὼςδὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἰωσίαν [Amon fathered Josiah], 14. Ἰωσίας δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἰεχονίαν καὶ τοὺς ἀδελφοὺςαὐτοῦἐπὶ τῆς μετοι κεσίαςΒαβυλῶνος[JosiahfatheredJeconiahandhisbrothers,atthetimeofthe deportation to Babylon]. Generations from the deportation to Christ: Whenoneincludes the generation of Jesus, which is presented in the passive form, there are thirteen generations from the deportation to Christ, and fourteen names (excluding Mary):

1. Μετὰ δὲτὴνμετοικεσίαν Βαβυλῶνος Ἰεχονίας ἐγέννησεν τὸν Σαλαθιήλ [After the deportation to Babylon: Jeconiah fathered Shealtiel], 2. Σαλαθιὴλδὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ζοροβαβέλ [Shealtiel fathered Zerubbabel], 3. Ζοροβαβὲλδὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἀβιούδ [Zerubbabel fathered Abihud], 4. Ἀβιοὺδδὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἐλιακίμ [Abihud fathered Eliakim], 5. Ἐλιακὶμδὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἀζώρ [Eliakim fathered Azor], 6. Ἀζὼρδὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Σαδώκ [Azor fathered Zadok], 7. Σαδὼκδὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἀχίμ [Zadok fathered Achim], 8. Ἀχὶμδὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἐλιούδ [Achim fathered Eliud], 9. Ἐλιοὺδδὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἐλεάζαρ [Eliud fathered Eleazar], 10. Ἐλεάζαρ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ματθάν [Eleazar fathered Matthan], 11. Ματθὰνδὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἰακώβ [Matthan fathered Jacob], 12. Ἰακὼβδὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἰωσὴφ [Jacob fathered Joseph … ] 13. τὸν ἄνδρα Μαρίας, ἐξ ἧς ἐγεννήθη Ἰησοῦς ὁ λεγόμενος χριστός […the hus band of Mary, by whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ.].

The Search for a Missing Generation

A missing generation becomes apparent in both the first and last series. The majority of commentators do not address the missing generation in the first group, the absence of a name seems less problematic in this series in cea reader can perceive an implicit generation of Abraham. However, the missing generation in the last series has given rise to many exegetical hypotheses

1. A name was left out from this group by mistake, or there was a voluntary rounding off by the author of the Gospel. This position is shared by Ernst Schmauch and Werner Lohmeyer, Joachim Jeremias, Michael D. Goulder, Herman Hendrickx, W.D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, Craig S. Keener, Simon Légasse, Karl-Heinrich Ostmeyer and Robert J. Miller

(ErnstSchmauchandWernerLohmeyer,DasEvangeliumdesMatthäus(Göttingen:Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1962), 3; Joachim Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus: An Investigation into Economic and Social Conditions During the New Testament Period (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1969), 293–295; Michael D. Goulder, Midrash and Lection in Matthew (London: Society for Pro moting Christian Knowledge, 1974), 23; Herman Hendrickx, The Infancy Narratives (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1984), 23–24; W.D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew, vol. 1: Introduction and Commentary on Matthew I-VII (London: T&T Clark International, 2004), 186; Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of Matthew: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2009), 74; Simon Légasse”, “LesgénéalogiesdeJésus,”Bulletindelittératureecclésiastique99,no.4(1998):446;Karl-Heinrich Ostmeyer, “Der Stammbaum des Verheißenen: Theologische Implikationen der Namen und Zahlen in Mt 1.1-17,” New Testament Studies 46 (2000): 175–92; Robert J. Miller, Born Divine: The Births of Jesus & Other Sons of God (Santa Rosa, California: Polebridge, 2003), 79–81).

Some Old Testament genealogical lists also feature a discrepancy between the stated total and the number of elements in the list (1Chr 3:22; Ezra 1:9-11, 2:2-64, 2Ezra 7:7-66). This proposition is impossible to prove and, if accepted, all other interpretative difficulties of biblical texts could potentially simply be dismissed as errors. Luz also believes that there is an approximation of the number of generations (Ulrich Luz, Matthew 1-7, 85). He stresses that in the first century, the context of oral transmission did not allow the listener to count the generations. Since the summary occurs after the list of names, the argument is that the capacity of memory to the number of generations that had been listed orally is exceeded. This argument is important but not clear-cut. The aural analytical capacities of people living in oral cultures are not the same as those of cultures where the written text pre dominates. I am not convinced that the listeners or proclaimers would have been unable to detect the error. Furthermore, even if the problem is not apparent during an oral recitation,an undeniable difference still exists between what is presented in the genealogy in verses 2-16 and the information given in verse 17.

2. Counting some names twice is a popular interpretive strategy of the text. Wil helm Martin Leberecht De Wette, David Friedrich Strauss, Marie-Joseph Lagrange, Rodney T. Hood, Norman Walker, W. Barnes Tatum, Jacques Masson, D.A.Hagner and Raymond E. Brown count Jeconiah twice:at the end of the second part of the genealogy and at the beginning of the third.

Response: It seems illogical to include the Jeconiah’s birth twice and David’s only once. Hagner and Brown respond to this objection by pointing to the confusion around Jeconiah, they believe that the two references imply two separate persons, each with the same name or nickname. it is by no means self-evident in Matt 1, since there is nothing in the text to suggest that the second mention of Jeconiah refers to another individual. In a similar manner, Johann Albrecht Bengel, Hugo Schöllig, Ernst Lerle, and Danny Zacharias count David twice, to enumerate fourteen names from Abraham to David; fourteen from David to Josiah, and fourteen from Josiah to Joseph. In Matthew’s text, the second genealogical series ends with Jeconiah, not Josiah.

André Paul and Robert H. Gundry suggest counting Mary as the biological parent of Jesus, in addition to Joseph as the legal relative of Jesus. However, this solution only works if we are interested in the sum total of names, rather than the number of generations. By including Mary, the number of generations does not increase since the generations of Joseph and of Jesus are already counted. Moreover, counting Mary while ignoring the other women of the genealogy seems to be rather inconsistent (Raymond E. Brown, Birth, 83).

4. Krister Stendahl and H. Benedict Green count Jesus and Christ as two different generations. However, Matthew’s gospel appears to indicate that Jesus is the Christ from the moment of his conception (Matt 1:18,20) rather than solely after the resurrection. Similarly, inspired by the divisions of history according to 2Apoc.Bar.53-74, HermanC.Waetjen counts Jesus, who would die on the cross, as the thirteenth generation, and the risen Christ inaugurating eschatological times as the fourteenth generation. However, my objection here would be that the other generations are expressed through the action of begetting, which is of a very different nature to resurrection.

1. 5. Jane Schaberg and Rudolf Pesch regard the missing generation as a clue to search for Jesus’ father. According to Schaberg, Jesus was conceived in an illegitimate union with an unknown biological father, whose name is missing from the genealogy. Pesch goes in the opposite direction by looking toward God’s paternity. Schaberg’s anonymous father only replace Joseph in the list without adding another generation. Even if Pesch’s interpretation is theologically meaningful by pointing to an important theme in the gospels, his proposition still does not change the number of generations.
2. According to John Chrysostom and Hilary of Poitiers, the population deported to Babylon must be included as a generation, thereby furnishing the account with another generation. However, this hypothesis rests upon a highly original, even unlikely, way of understanding the verb γενεά used repeatedly in Matt 1 to link a father and his son. Another proposition, presented by Hilary of Poitiers and echoed by Brian M. Nolan and Gérard Claudel, is to count the Holy Spirit. As previously pointed out, replacing Joseph does not add a generation. Moreover, the Holy Spirit is not otherwise mentioned in Matthew’s genealogy.

1. Seven: An Important Biblical Symbol

Edgar Krentz, Herman Hendrickx, Marshall D. Johnson, N.T. Wright, Savvas Agouridēs, and Armand Abecassis view the number fourteen as representing two times seven (EdgarKrentz,“ExtentofMatthew’sPrologue:TowardtheStructureoftheFirstGospel,”Journal of Biblical Literature 83, no. 4 (1964): 413; Herman Hendrickx, The Infancy Narratives, 23–4; MarshallD.Johnson,ThePurposeoftheBiblicalGenealogieswithSpecialReferencetotheSettingof the Genealogies of Jesus (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1969), 202; N.T. Wright, The New TestamentandthePeopleofGod. vol.1,Of ChristianOrigins andthe Question of God(Minneapolis/ London:Fortress,1992),385–86;SavvasAgouridēs,“TheBirthofJesusandtheHerodianDynasty: AnUnderstanding of Matthew, Chapter 2,” Greek Orthodox Theological Review 37, no. 1–4 (1992): 146;ArmandAbecassis“‘Envéritéjevousledis’unelecturejuivedesévangiles”(Paris:Éditionsn°1, 1999), 95–6). The number seven has important symbolism in the Bible. The cre ation described in Genesis 1 taking place over seven days is just one example. Similarly, re-creation by the Messiahwouldbecountedinsixgroupsofseven.This does not seem convincing since Matt 1 does not mention the number seven, only groups of fourteen.