Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [ematthew] Introduction and the Genealogy of Matthew

Expand Messages
  • MillerJimE@AOL.COM
    My apologies for a late response to this topic. I have been away for a family funeral. I realize that this is just one point in this study, but I am always
    Message 1 of 3 , Sep 10, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      My apologies for a late response to this topic. I have been away for a
      family funeral.
      I realize that this is just one point in this study, but I am always
      amazed at how many scholars assume that the genealogies of Matthew and Luke must
      somehow be blood-line biological genealogies, creating a problem with these
      genealogies of Joseph. Luke is more explicit than Matthew, stating that Jesus
      was "as it was supposed" the son of Joseph, and that Mary's pregnancy was
      amazing because "I have not known a man." (3:23; 1:34) Luke and his community seem
      to have no problem with a genealogy of the legal father of Jesus who was
      explicitly NOT the biological father. Why should we suppose that Matthew or his
      community did require a biological genealogy?
      Yet, there are plenty of commentators who work any potential ambiguity of
      Matthew to try and make this genealogy a biological genealogy of the
      biological mother of Jesus. It seems to be a misplaced effort. First, the interest
      in the genealogy is to establish the legal inheritance of Jesus. As written,
      the natural reading of the genealogy is that of Joseph, husband of Mary.
      None of the other women in the genealogy are given patronyms or other
      genealogical data. Also, the New Testament as a whole turns its back on sexual
      reproduction, taking more interest in conversion and charism.
      Finally, a common way to square the two genealogiesis has the non-royal
      Davidic line as heirs of David's line when the royal line is made eunuchs
      during the exile. This explanation goes back at least as far as Tyndale who places
      it in the margin of his translation of Matthew 1. Even for conservatives it
      is unnecessary to make one of the genealogies biological.

      Jim Miller


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Chris Weimer
      Thank you for your response, Jim (if I may call you that). Also, if I may quote freely, Why should we suppose that Matthew or his community did require a
      Message 2 of 3 , Sep 12, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Thank you for your response, Jim (if I may call you that). Also, if I
        may quote freely,

        "Why should we suppose that Matthew or his community did require a
        biological genealogy?"

        I think for the most part people had assumed that Matthew was more
        Judaistic in his gospel, thus for the tight regulations regarding
        genealogical descent and whatnot. Even scholars like Loisy reconstruct
        1.16 as "And Joseph begat Jesus, called Christ" citing embarrassment
        to such a minimal theologically passage. However, there really isn't a
        need to assume that Matthew's community (from what we can evince
        thereof) were so tight regarding such.

        "Yet, there are plenty of commentators who work any potential
        ambiguity of Matthew to try and make this genealogy a biological
        genealogy of the biological mother of Jesus. It seems to be a
        misplaced effort. First, the interest in the genealogy is to
        establish the legal inheritance of Jesus. As written, the natural
        reading of the genealogy is that of Joseph, husband of Mary. None of
        the other women in the genealogy are given patronyms or other
        genealogical data. Also, the New Testament as a whole turns its back
        on sexual reproduction, taking more interest in conversion and
        charism. Finally, a common way to square the two genealogiesis has
        the non-royal Davidic line as heirs of David's line when the royal
        line is made eunuchs during the exile. This explanation goes back at
        least as far as Tyndale who places it in the margin of his translation
        of Matthew 1. Even for conservatives it is unnecessary to make one of
        the genealogies biological."

        I myself do not assume such a position, though I have argued for it
        before, because of the tampering one would have to do with the text. I
        merely placed it there to refute some of their theories which now seem
        ludicrous. However, prior tampering is evident, and the lack of one
        genealogy does make it seem suspect. What was originally there?
        Perhaps we will never know. My own theory indicates that whatever may
        have originally been there is now lost, most likely altered by the
        final editor of Matthew before major circulation.

        Chris Weimer
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.