Loading...Since I’ve started talking about Matthew’s genealogy, I’ve decided to stick with it a bit longer. Most of my students, when they pick up the New Testament and I have them start at the beginning, they begin with Matthew 1:1 and moan. A genealogy?!? Ugh.
I tell them to get over it. This thing is only 16 verses long. C’mon! If you want a GENEALOGY, read 1 Chronicles 1-9. Nine CHAPTERS of fathers and sons, starting with Adam. Now *that* is a genealogy!
(Anecdote: when I was an undergraduate at Moody Bible Institute in the mid 70’s, for some reason I had to take a correspondence course to fill out one of my requirements. This is back when a correspondence course meant doing it as correspondence — through the mail! It was some kind of broadly based Bible class, and one of the requirements was that you had to memorize and then reproduce a certain number of verses from the Bible. You could choose. Just your favorite verses. They were expecting, of course, things like Psalm 23 or John 1:1-4 or John 3:16-18 or Phil. 2:6-11. So I made my choices and they were all like my opening passage: 1 Chronicles 4:11-16. They didn’t think it was very funny….)
Anyway, Matthew’s genealogy may be short, but it is fascinating and telling — not only because of the 14-14-14 schema I’ve discussed. For another thing, there are four women who appear in it. Women?? In an ancient Jewish genealogy? What’s *that* all about? And those particular women! Now that’s a serious puzzle. Here’s the brief discussion I devote to it in my NT textbook.
*********************************
There is one other interesting and frequently-noted feature of Matthew’s genealogy of Jesus (actually, not of Jesus, but of Joseph). That is the fact that it makes explicit reference to women among Jesus’ ancestors. That is highly unusual. Women scarcely ever appear in most ancient Israelite and Jewish genealogies, which invariably trace a person’s lineage from father to son (or vice versa) all the way back through the family line; see, as I pointed out earlier, 1 Chronicles 1-9. Where are the women? For ancient genealogists, as a rule, they were not important enough to mention.
But Matthew not only ends his genealogy by mentioning Mary, Jesus’ mother, but he also includes reference to four other women: Tamar (v. 3), Rahab (v. 5), Ruth (v. 5), and the “wife of Uriah” that is, Bathsheba (v. 6). Stories about all four of these women are found in the Jewish Scriptures (Tamar: Genesis 38; Rahab: Joshua 2, 6; Ruth; Ruth 1-4; and Bathsheba: 2 Samuel 11-12).
But why does Matthew mention them here? Among the numerous theories proposed over the years, two are particularly intriguing….
Hey, who ever thought a biblical genealogy could be interesting? Want to see why it is? If you’re a blog member, you can — just keep reading. If you’re not? Tough bananas. On the upside, you *could* join! It won’t cost much; every nickel you pay goes to charity; and you’ll know more about Matthew’s genealogy than anyone on your block!
Off topic, but…..
Given that most people in the ancient world could not read, and that gospels, letters and so forth were read to gatherings to help propagate Christianity, is there any evidence that readers were not always faithful to the written word, but changed it as they read to reflect their own beliefs?
It’s a great question, and one that many scholars have wondered about. Most suspect the answer is probably yes! But unfortunately, since the words were spoken rather than written, there is no way to know! Maybe I’ll post on this one at some point.
Is it possible that the genealogies in Matthew and Luke were developed before the idea of a virgin birth, early on when they thought Joseph really was the father, and their purpose was simply to prove that Jesus was descended from David? I suppose that would be hard to prove without other early references to the genealogies or discussions of Jesus’ parentage. (I appreciate you pointing out what really happened with Ruth and Boaz: in sermons and Sunday school that always gets bowdlerized, but the story is pretty clear when you read it carefully!)
I think it’s entirely possible. Matthew’s ending seems cobbled together, when it tries to explain who Joseph wsa in relatino to Jesus; and Looks’ “supposedly” seems meant to cover up a problem.
As to Ruth: yes indeed! Turns out its a steamy story….
Bart, why did the new blog do away with a Logout button at the top?
Thx
I don’t think it did? If you hover over your name it should appear as a drop-down menu option.
wow,,,, !!,,never seen or heard that before.
Thanks !
How confident are scholars that Ruth uncovering Boaz’s feet is a euphemism? I’ve heard it argued that it is likely not given that the passage doesn’t seem to treat her behavior as scandalous.
It’s often thought that “feet” is a euphemism for genitals — e.g., in Isaiah 6, where the seraphim use their wings to cover their “feet” (i.e., to cover their modesty). Maybe not, but the story of Ruth certainly makes better sense if that’s what it means!
I’ve always found that an interesting point too. It begs the question whether the writer of Matthew might have been aware of very non-supernatural claims of illegitimacy (true or not), that is seemingly hinted at in the gospels in Mark(“Mary’s son”) and John(“we’re not bastards”), and made explicit fairly early on in Celcus’ writings, and echoed in later Talmudic literature – but that, in order to protect both Jesus’ reputation as well has his family’s, Matthew (or someone maybe from whom he and Luke both received the tradition) had to make such a supernatural origins story up; the other reason being that it would have been appealing in the Greco-Roman world. Perhaps Mark and John’s authors also knew the rumors, but would rather just pass it off in silence, with maybe a touch of acknowledgement there were rumors. Psychologically it’s harder to gauge of course, but Jesus does seem to have a father issue. All things taken together, it does feel like something’s up.