In terms of the different accounts of Joseph’s father, it’s not difficult either today or back then to imagine that someone might have a legal father other than his biological one, especially if Joseph’s biological father disowned him over the shame of Mary’s irregular pregnancy. But there are a few other interesting things to notice about the genealogies. First, though they give different grandfathers for Jesus, the name of his great-grandfather in both genealogies is almost identical: Matthan in Matthew and Matthat in Luke. The only difference is in the final consonant, and this is of a kind that is readily explicable: these names reflect two Hebrew words — mattan and mattat — both of which mean “gift”.
Secondly, taking our cue from this name, we see that a number of the names in Luke’s genealogy share a single root. The name Matthat along with five other names in the genealogy after David come from the Hebrew three-consonant root NTN which means “give”. (Sometimes the Ns are hidden by turning into Ts.) These are Mattathias (3:25), Mattathias (3:26), Matthat (3:29), Mattatha (3:31), and Nathan (3:31). This makes some sense as this is the genealogy through David’s son Nathan. The root for “give” was used to form some of the most popular names of Nathan’s descendants. As is common in families, names are repeated. There are three Josephs, two Levis, two Melchis, and the name Er (3:28), which is only ever attested for the tribe of Judah (see Genesis 38:3). These are features we might expect in a true narrative. We may also note that the genealogy doesn’t blunder by having any of the popular Greek names, such as Philip or Herod, for the period before Alexander the Great.
Thirdly, in both Matthew and Mark we’re told the names of Jesus’s brothers: James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas (Matthew 13:55) or James, Joses, Judas, and Simon (Mark 6:3). These differ only in the order of the final two names and in the adaptation of the Hebrew name Joseph to a Greek ending in the form Joses in Mark. However, these names also link with the genealogy in Matthew. Boys were often called after their grandfathers (a practice known as papponymy) and sometimes after their father (patronymy). If Jesus’s name was indeed given by the angel as stated in Matthew 1:21, then neither the father’s nor the grandfather’s name was an option. However, we see both these names used in the family. James is usually understood to be the first son born to Joseph and Mary after Jesus’s birth. He was therefore called James, or strictly Jakobos, ie his grandfather’s name Jacob with the Greek noun ending -os. Jakobos evolved into English as James through centuries of sound changes. The next son after Jakobos was named after his father Joseph.
Thus we can see in the names of Jesus’s brothers a tiny coincidence which supports Matthew’s genealogy.
Pages
▼
Friday, December 17, 2021
Evidence For Jesus' Genealogies
Peter Williams makes some good points about Jesus' genealogies in the New Testament:
Peter Williams seems to be laboring under a false assumption, I far as I understand his argument. To me it seems he is still trying to reconcile the Mt. & Lk. genealogies. Jesus has nothing to do with Joseph's line except in a legal human adoption sense and people's perception in His day that they would call Jesus the "son of David." Jesus had to be a legitimate member of David's line which Paul taught in Rom. 1.3. 2Sam.7.12-13 promises David a descendent from his body (mim me e ka) who would build His house/church (Mt. 16.18) and whose kingdom would last forever. David's physical contribution was that Mary was his descendent as well as Joseph. Luke's genealogy is Mary's. After all, God fulfilled His promise to David despite traditional Jewish patriological reckoning. Also, to bolster my contention, consider Zelophehad's daughters keeping their father's lineage intact though they had no brothers to continue Zelophehad's name.
ReplyDeleteI agree that Mary was likely a descendant of David, and a genealogy traced through Mary is possible. But it's more likely that a genealogy in a context like the one in question here would be traced through Joseph. There are explicit references to Joseph's Davidic ancestry, whereas the argument for Mary's Davidic ancestry is weaker (though still significant and convincing to me). The focus on Joseph's Davidic descent in both gospels makes more sense if the genealogies are focused on him. We don't have much to go by in judging some of the details involved in the virginal conception, but I take what I've called the transfer view, meaning that material from Joseph was transferred to Mary. You can see the thread here for some of my reasoning and my responses to critics of my view.
Delete