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

Re: Introduction and the Genealogy of Matthew

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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.