Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadInternational Critical Commentary NT - Matthew 1:1 - 1:99
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW
————
A.—1. 2. BIRTH AND INFANCY OF THE MESSIAH
1:1-17. His Genealogy
(E) 1:1. Book of the generation of Jesus Christ, Son of David, Son of Abraham.] ββο γνσω is clearly borrowed from Gen_2:4a LXX. So far as the Hebrew of that passage is concerned, “These are the generations,” etc., would seem to close the preceding section. But it is probable that the LXX. translator connected it rather with 2:4b-4:26. This section contains J’s narratives of the creation of man, of the garden, of the Fall, of the birth of Cain and Abel, and of the descendants of Cain down to Lamech; ending with the births of Seth and of his son. γνσςhere, therefor covers the genealogy of mankind from Adam to Seth, and includes a good deal of narrrative-matter relating to this period. In Gen_5:1 ββο γνσω occur again, and here covers the genealogy of Adam as far as Japheth (5:32), with an appended history containing an account of the wickedness of men in the days of Noah (6:1-8). In 6:9 occurs the shorter superscription ατιδ α γνσι Νε introducing the account of the Flood, 6:9-9:29. In 10:1 ατιδ α γνσι τνυῶ Νεintroduces a list of the descendants of Noah, with an appended narrative of the tower of Babel (11:1-9). In 11:10 ατια γνσι Σμintroduces a list of the descendants of that Patriarch to Terah; and in 11:27 a similar formula ushers in the descendants of Terah. It is therefore clear that to a Jewish Christian writer acquainted with the LXX., ἡββο γνσω, or ατια γνσι, was a biblical phrase which might be used to describe a narrative containing, as in the case of Noah, a list of descendants, and some account of the life of the person named. In strict analogy we should expect ββο γνσω Ἀρά. But, since for the editor the main interest centred in the person of Christ rather than of Abraham, it was not unnatural for him to depart from literary usage in this respect. It seems probable that the title should be taken as covering not the whole Gospel, but only that portion of it which gives Christ’s ancestry and the circumstances of His birth and childhood.
ἸσῦΧιτῦ This collocation is rare in the Synoptic Gospels. It occurs here, 1:18? 16:21? Mar_1:1 only. Also in Joh_1:17, Joh_17:3 Χιτςhas become a proper name, and lost its adjectival force. For the history of Χιτςas a Messianic title, see Dalm. Words, 289 ff.—υο Δυί] For “Son of David” as a title of the Messiah, see Dalm. Words, 319 ff.—υο Ἀρά] Cf. Heb_2:16 σέμτςἈρὰ ἐιαβντι The descent of the Messiah from Abraham is emphasised in Test. Lev_8. Cf. Volz, Jü Eschat. 216.
The genealogy which follows was probably compiled by the editor for the purpose of his Gospel. (a) In accordance with this purpose he carries back the genealogy to Abraham, the first founder of the Jewish race. (b) He inserts details which are out of place in a strict genealogy, but which are in harmony with the theme of his Gospel, e.g. ἐ τςΘμρ v. 3; ἐ τςῬχβ v. 4; ἐ τςῬύ, v. 5; ἐ τςτῦΟρο, v. 6. These names are probably introduced as those of women, in whose case circumstances were overruled by the divine providence which, as it might have seemed, should have excluded them from a place in the ancestral line of the Messiah. They were in a sense forerunners of the Virgin Mary. (c) The division into three groups of fourteen names also has its purpose. In David the family rose to royal power (Δυὶ τνβσλα v. 6). At the Captivity it lost it again. In the Christ it regained it.
For the names in the genealogy the compiler naturally had recourse to the Old Testament so far as that availed him. He appears to have used the LXX. text.
V. 2 comes from 1Ch_1:34, 1Ch_2:1, v. 3 from 1Ch_2:4, 1Ch_2:5, 1Ch_2:9, vv. 4-6a from 1Ch_2:10-13, vv. 6b-11 from 1Ch_3:5, 1Ch_3:10-15 vv. 12, 13 to Ζρββλfrom 1Ch_3:17-19. The names in vv. 13-16 come from an unknown source, probably from information received from Christ’s relations.
(E) 2. Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judah and his brethren.] Ἀρὰ ἐένσ τνἸακ from 1Ch_1:34 κὶἐένσνἈρὰ τνἸακ In the next clause Ἰκβcomes from 1Ch_1:34, where the Heb. has “Israel.” This is at the outset a hint that the compiler is using the LXX. rather than the Hebrew.—Ἰύα κὶτὺ ἀεφὺ ατῦ The compiler borrows Ἰυάfrom 1Ch_2:1, and then summarises the brethren whose names are there given as τὺ ἀεφὺ ατῦ The fact that he mentions the brethren at all suggests that he has this verse in Chronicles before him.
(E) 3. And Judah begat Phares and Zara from Tamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram.] Clause a is from 1Ch_2:4 κὶΘμρἡνμηατῦἔεε ατ τνΦρςκὶτνΖρ. The fact that the compiler adds κὶτνΖρ ἐ τςΘμρ which is quite superfluous in a genealogy proper, shows that he had 1Ch_2:4 before him. Ζρ is the Septuagintal form of זרח On the editor’s special reason for mentioning Tamar, see above.—Ἑρμ In 1Ch_2:9 B has Ἑεώ, A Luc. Ἑρμ In 1Ch_2:5 B has Ἁσν B a? b? Ἑεώ, A Luc. Ἑρμ Elsewhere Ἑρμis peculiar to A Luc., never appearing in B. Its use in Mt. shows that the compiler was using Septuagintal forms, and not trans literating the Hebrew.—Ἀά] In 1Ch_2:9 Ἀά appears as a son of Ἑρμ
(E) 4. And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon.]—Ἀά] In 1Ch_2:10 B has Ἀρν but A Luc. Ἀά.—Ἀιαά] In 1Ch_2:10 B has Ἀενδβ but A Luc. Ἀιαά. Νασνand Σλώ come from 1Ch_2:10, 1Ch_2:11. They are the Septuagintal forms of נחשוןand שְַָ.
(E) 5. And Naasson begat Boes from Rahab; and Boes begat Iobed from Ruth; and Iobed begat Jessai.]—Βο] In 1Ch_2:11, 1Ch_2:12 B has Βο, but A Luc. βο.—ἐ τςῬχβ For the insertion, see on v. 1. Ῥχβis not a Septuagintal form. This version uniformly has Ῥά However, Josephus has ἡῬχβ or Ῥάη Ant. v. 8, 11, 15. The editor adopts here a form which represents the Hebrew more nearly than Ῥά. Ἰβδand Ἰσα are the Septuagintal forms of עֹדand ישַ or איׁ. They come from 1Ch_2:12, where B has Ὠή and A Ἰβδ
(E) 6. And Jessai begat David the king.] The insertion of “the king,” which was perhaps suggested by ἐαίεσν 1Ch_3:4 or by Rth_4:22 LXX. A, marks the close of the first division of the genealogy. At this point the family obtained royal power. Δυί is the Septuagintal form. For τνβσλα cf. also Jos. Ant. v. ix. 4:—“From Obed came Jessai, and from him David the king (ὁβσλύα), and left the sovereignty to his sons for twenty-one generations. I thought it necessary to recount the history of Ruth, because I wished to show the power of God, that He can advance even the ignoble to splendid dignity; such as that to which He brought David, though born of such parents.”
6, 7. And David begat Solomon from the wife of Uriah; and Solomon begat Roboam.] 1Ch_3:5, 1Ch_3:10.—Σλμν] The LXX. A B has Σλμν Luc. Σλμν Josephus Σλμν Ῥβό is the Septuagintal form.—ἐ τςτῦΟρίυ Perhaps suggested to the editor by 1Ch_3:5. For the insertion of a woman’s name, see on v. 1. Ορίυis the Septuagintal form.
(E) 7, 8. And Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asaph; and Asaph begat Joshaphat; and Joshaphat begai Joram.] Cf. 1Ch_3:10, 1Ch_3:11.—Ἀι] LXX. A B has Ἀεά Luc. Ἀι. Josephus Ἀίς—Ἀά] In 1 Ch. LXX. A B Luc. has Ἀά Josephus Ἄαο. But Ἀά is a Septuagintal form. See Burkitt, Evangelion Da-Mepharreshe, 203. Ἰσφτand Ἰρμare Septuagintal forms. Josephus has Ἰσφτςand Ἰρμς
(E) 8, 9. And Joram begat Ozias; and Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Ahaz; and Ahaz begat Hezekias.] Cf. 1Ch_3:11, 1Ch_3:12. Joram begat Ozias. Commentators usually note that Mt. has here omitted three kings, Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah. But this is not the case. 1Ch_3:11 records that Ὀεάwas the son of Joram. That is to say, Mt. follows the LXX. of the Chronicles. Mt. continues: Ὀεα δ ἐένσ τνἸάα. The Chronicler LXX. has Ἰὰ υὸ ατῦ Ἀαίςυὸ ατῦ Ἀαι υὸ ατῦ Ἰαὰ υὸ ατῦ That is to say, Mt. has omitted not Ahaziah = Ὀεα, Joash, and Amaziah, but Joash, Amaziah, and Azariah = Uzziah. The reason must be sought in 1Ch_3:11 LXX. The son of Joram is there called Ὀεά Now for Ahaziah the LXX. generally has Ὀοεα, whilst Ὀεάis generally the equivalent of Uzziah, e.g. 2Ch_26:3ff. Ὀεάin 1Ch_3:11 is possibly a mistake. Mt. as he copied it seems naturally enough to have connected it with Uzziah, and so to have passed on to this king’s son, Jotham, thus omitting unconsciously the three intervening kings. Or the copy of the LXX. which he followed may have made the omission for the same reason.—Ὀεα] The Septuagintal forms are Ὀεά B; Ὀίς A Luc.—Ἰαά] The LXX. A B has Ἰαά, but Luc. Ἰθς—Ἄα] The LXX. A B has Ἄα, but Luc. Ἄα. Ἐείςis the LXX. form.
(E) 10. And Hezekiah begat Manasseh; and Manasseh begat Amos; and Amos begat Josiah.]—Μνσῆ] So LXX. Josephus.—Ἰσίς LXX. A B has Ἰσι, but Luc. Ἰσα; so Josephus.—Ἀώ] LXX. B has Ἀνν A1? Ba b Ἀώ, Josephus, Ἄωο or Ἀμν
(E) 11. And Josiah begat Jechoniah and his brethren, at the time of the captivity into Babylon.] κὶτὺ ἀεφὺ ατῦis inserted because in 1Ch_3:15, the names of the brethren of Jehoiakim are recorded just as the same words occur in v. 2, because the brethren of Judah are registered in 1Ch_2:1.
The verse as it stands gives rise to great difficulties, because Jehoiakim has been omitted. But the text must be corrupt. As it stands there are only thirteen names in the third division, beginning with Salathiel. And this is impossible in view of v. 17. If we suppose that Ἰχνα in v. 11 is a corruption for Ἰαεμ everything is plain.1 The κὶτύ ἀεφύ is then due to 1Ch_3:15 where the names of Jehoiakim’s brethren are given.—ἐὶτςμτιείς μτιεί, a rare word. It occurs ten times in the LXX., besides only Anth. P. 7. 731. The mention of the Captivity closes the second division of the genealogy. In the generation of Jechoniah the family lost the royal power to which it had risen in the person of David.
(E) 12. And after the captivity into Babylon, Jechoniah begat Sala thiel.] From 1Ch_3:17.
(E) 12, 13. And Salathiel begat Zorobabel; and Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim.] In 1Ch_3:19 the Hebrew represents Zerubbabel as the son of Pedaiah. But the LXX. B A gives κὶυο Σλθὴ Ζρββλ κτλ The editor is therefore clearly using the LXX. It seems clear that up to this point the editor has been using the LXX. of 1 Ch 1-3. For (1) the names are given in the forms of the LXX. The only apparent exceptions are Ἀά and ʼαά. The latter does not occur in 1 Ch 1-3, and the editor substitutes a traditional form for the ʼαβof the LXX. (2) Several of the details in Mt. are explained by his use of the LXX. of 1 Ch., e.g. (a) Ἰκβ v. 2. So LXX. 1Ch_1:34, Heb. ישְֵָ. (b) Ἰρμδ ἐένσ τνὈίν(v. 9). So LXX. 1Ch_3:11. (c) Σλθὴ δ ἐένσ τνΖρββλ(v. 13). So LXX. 1Ch_3:19. Other details in the genealogy point to a use of 1 Ch. but not necessarily of the LXX. version, e.g. (a) κὶτὺ ἀεφὺ ατῦ(v. 2), is explained by 1Ch_2:1, 1Ch_2:2; (b) κὶτνΖρ ἐ τςΘμρ(v. 3), by references to 1Ch_2:4; (c) κὶτὺ ἀεφὺ ατῦ(v. 11), by reference to 1Ch_3:15.
For the names which follow, the editor is dependent on other information.
(E) 13, 14. And Eliakim begat Azor; and Azor begat Sadok; and Sadok begat Acheim; and Acheim begat Eliud.]
(E) 15. And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob.]
(E) 16. And Jacob begat Joseph. Joseph, to whom was espoused Mary a virgin, begat Jesus, who is called Christ.] Thus ends the third division of the genealogy. The family now regained in the Christ, the anointed King, the sovereignty which it had won in David and lost at the Captivity. There is no sufficient ground for supposing that the genealogy ever existed apart from the Gospel. The references to Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, Bathsheba, can only be explained as due to the editor of the Gospel, who saw in the life histories of these women a divine overruling of history from which a right understanding of Mary’s virginity might be drawn. Of course these references might have been inserted by the editor of the Gospel in a genealogy which he found ready made to his hand. But the artificial arrangement into three groups of fourteen names reminds us of the not infrequent predilection for arrangements in three which runs through the entire work. Cf. the following: three incidents of Christ’s childhood, ch. 2; three incidents prior to His ministry, 3-4:11; three temptations, 4:1-11; threefold interpretation of “do not commit murder,” v. 22; three illustrations of “righteousness,” 6:1-18; three prohibitions, 6:19-7:6; three injunctions, 7:7-27; three miracles of healing, 8:1-15; three miracles of power, 8:23-9:8; three complaints of His adversaries, 9:1-17; threefold answer to question about fasting, 9:14-17; three incidents illustrating the hostility of the Pharisees, 12; three parables of sowing, 13:1-32; three sayings about “little ones,” ch. 18; three parables of prophecy, 21:28-22:14; three parables of warning, 24:32-25:30. There is, further, no ground for the widespread belief that the genealogy is in itself a proof of a belief that Christ was the natural son of Joseph and Mary. This particular genealogy contains the condemnation of such a belief. The man who could compile it and place immediately after it 1:18-25, clearly did not believe that Christ was the son of Joseph. He inserted in the genealogy the references to the women and the relative clause “to whom was betrothed Mary a virgin,” in order to anticipate vv. 18-25. In other words, ἐένσ throughout the genealogy denotes legal, not physical descent. He had before him two traditional facts—(a) that Christ was born of a Virgin in a supernatural manner, (b) that He was the Messiah, i.e. the Son of David. How could a Jewish Christian, indeed how could anyone, reconcile these facts otherwise than by supposing that Mary’s husband was the legal father of Christ? So non-natural a sense of fatherhood may seem strange to us, but the fact of the supernatural birth which gave rise to it is stranger. Whatever we may think of it, this was the belief of the editor of the Gospel; so that there is no ground for the widespread opinion that the existence of a genealogy of Christ is proof of an underlying belief that He was the natural son of Joseph and Mary. If the editor simply tried to give expression to the two facts which had come down to him by tradition—the fact of Christ’s supernatural birth, and the fact that He was the Davidic Messiah, and did not attempt a logical synthesis of them, who shall blame him?
(E) 17. Therefore all the generations from Abraam to David are fourteen generations; and from David to the Captivity into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the Captivity into Babylon to the Christ are fourteen generations.] The artificial character of the genealogy is obvious from this verse. The arrangement into three will be found to be characteristic of this Gospel. The grouping into three fourteens may be due to the fact that in the Hebrew name David = דד there are three letters, and that the numerical value of these letters Isa_4+6+4=14. “By this means the genealogy was invested with the character of a sort of numerical acrostic on the name David” (G. H. Box, Interpreter, Jan. 1906, p. 199).
The genealogy thus constructed is no mere antiquarian attempt to discover genealogical facts. The writer is interested in the question whether Jesus was legally descended from David, and believes that this was the case. But his interest in this point arises from some other than a purely antiquarian motive. The clue to this motive is furnished by the insertion of the women. Why did the compiler think it necessary to safeguard in this manner the fact of the supernatural birth and of Mary’s innocence. The reason can hardly be any other than that these things were already the ground of anti-Christian polemic on the part of the Jews. Celsus, c. a.d. 170-180, is already acquainted with the Jewish slander that Jesus was born out of wedlock; cf. Orig. Contra Celsum, i. 28, 32, 33, 39. And we may be sure that the Christian tradition of the supernatural birth which lies behind the first and third Gospels evoked Jewish slander as soon as it became known to the Jews. For the later Jewish forms of this slander cf. Laible, Jesus Christus im Talmud; Herford, Christianity in Talmud and Midrash; Krauss, Das Leben Jesu nach Jü Quellen.
1:1. Δυί] So אA B C D al. The LXX. has Δυί or Δυδ Josephus Δυδςor Δβδς—Ἀρά] So LXX. Josephus has Ἄρμς Αράη (once), Ἀρά rarely.
2. Ἰακ So LXX. Josephus Ἴαο.—Ἰκβ So LXX. Josephus Ικβς—Ἰακδ] Om. δ here and throughout S12.
3. Ἰύα] LXX. has Ἰυά or Ἰυά In 1Ch_2:1 Ἰυά B; Ἰύα, Luc.; Ἰύα, Josephus.—Ζρ] B Ox Ζρ, LXX. Ζρ, Josephus Ζρσςor Ἐεος—Φρς So LXX.; Josephus Φρσς—Ἑομ LXX. has Ἑρμ(not B), Ἑεώ, Ἑρν Ἑρν Ἁσν In 1Ch_2:5 Ἁσν B; Ἑρν Ba? b? mg; Ἑρμ A Luc. In 1Ch_2:9 Ἑεώ, B; Ἑρν Ba b; Ἑρμ A Luc.—Ἀά] In 1Ch_2:9 LXX. B has Ἀά; in v. 10 Ἀρν but A Luc.Ἀά.
4. Ἀιαά, אC al; Ἀενδβ B Δ In 1Ch_2:10 LXX. B has Ἀενδβ A Luc. Ἀιαά, Josephus Ἀιάαο.—Νασν So LXX.—Σλώ] In 1Ch_2:11 Heb. has שמ, LXX. B Luc. Σλώ, A Σλά.
5. Βέ] אB Ox k; Βό, C 33; Βό, E K al; LXX. has Βό, Βό. In 1Ch_2:11, 1Ch_2:12 B Βό, A Luc. Βό, Josephus Βαο, Βώη.—Ῥχβ LXX. Ῥά. Josephus Ῥάη Ῥχβ.—Ἰβδ אB Ox Ὠή E K al; LXX. has Ὠή, Ἰβδ(A). In 1Ch_2:12, 1Ch_2:13 B Luc. Ὠή, A Ἰβδ Josephus Ὠήη.—Ῥύ] So LXX. Josephus Ῥύη—Ἰσα] So LXX. Josephus Ἰσαο.
6. Σλμν] LXX. has Σλμν Σλμν Σλμ, Σλμν(A). In 1Ch_3:5 Σλμν Luc. Σλμν Josephus Σλμν—Ορίυ B Ox.
7. Ῥβά] So LXX. Josephus Ῥβαο.—Ἀι] LXX. Ἀεά Ἀι; Josephus Ἀίς—Ἀά] אB C D luc Ox i. 209, 543, 700, k al. LXX. has Ἀά Josephus Ἄαο.
8. Ἰσφτ LXX. Ἰσφτ Ἰσφθ In 1Ch_3:10 Ἰσφτ Josephus Ἰσφτς—Ἰρμ So LXX. Josephus Ἰρμς—Ὀεα] S2 has “Ahazia; Ahazia begat Joash; Joash begat Amozia.” So Aphr.
9. Ὀεα] א B.;*; LXX. has Ὀεά Ὀι, Ὀεα, Οίς In 1Ch_3:11 Ὀεα B. Ὀις A Luc.; Josephus Ὀίς—Ἰαά] So LXX.; josephus Ἰάαο, Ἰθμς Ἰνθς—Ἄα] LXX., has Ἄα,Ἄα. In 1Ch_3:13 Ἄα, A B Ἄα, Luc. Josephus Ἄαο.—Ἐείς So LXX., Josephus.
10. Ἀώ, אB C D luc Ox; LXX. Ἀνν Ἀμν Ἀώ. In 1Ch_3:14 B. has Ἀνν Ba b. Al? val forte a Ἀώ, Luc. Ἀώ, Josephus Ἀμν Ἄωο.
11. Ἰσίς אB Dluc; LXX. has Ἰσίς Ἰσα; Josephus Ἰσα.—τνἸχνα] We must read here τνἸαεμκὶτὺ ἀεφὐ ατῦ Ἰαεμδ ὲένσ τνἸχνα ἐὶτςμτιείςΒβλνς So substantially: M U al S4 S5 with asterisk.
12. Σλθή] So LXX.; Josephus Σλθηο.—Ζρββλ So LXX.; Josephus Ζρββλς
16. On the text, see the admirable note of Mr. Burkitt, Evangelion da Mepharreshe, ii. 258 ff. The reading of אB. al is: Ἰκβδ έένσ τνἸσφτνἄδαΜρα ὲ ἧ ἐενθ Ἱσῦ ὁλγμνςΧιτς Besides this there is a second reading: Ἰκβδ ἐένσ τνἸσφᾧμητυεσ πρέο Μρὰ ἐένσ Ἰσῦ τνλγμννΧιτν This is the reading of the Ferrar group 346, 556, 826, 828. So S2 Jacob begat Joseph, him to whom was betrothed Mary the Virgin, she who bare Jesus the Messiah. So, too, the old latt a b c d g k q. So, too, the text which underlies the Armenian; cf. Robinson, Euthaliana, p. 82. Besides these two readings, S1 has a third. “Jacob begat Joseph. Joseph, to whom was betrothed Mary the Virgin, begat Jesus, called the Messiah.” Burkitt believes this to be a paraphrase of the reading of the Ferrar group, and thinks that S2 is derived from it. In this last point he is no doubt right. S2 is, as a whole, dependent on S1, and it is therefore probable that S1 has the earlier reading here. But it is questionable whether S1 does not represent a Greek text found nowhere else (not in the Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila; see Burkitt, p. 265), namely, Ἰκβδ ἐένσ τνἸσφ Ἰσφδ ᾧμητυεσ ἥ Μρά πρέο ἐένσ Ἰσῦ τνλγμννΧιτν Burkitt objects that “the practice of the writer is to interpose no words between the name and the verb ἐένσ, so that the clause ᾧμητυεσ πρ. M. ought to follow the first mention of Joseph, not the second.” But the relative clause is clearly required in close connection with ἐένσ in order to qualify it, meaning “begat,” but “from a virgin,” i.e. not “literally,” but “legally.” It seems probable, therefore, that the text underlying S1 is the nearest approach now extant to the original Greek, and it must remain possible that even here the relative clause is an insertion. This earliest Greek form was gradually altered from a desire to avoid words which, though in the intention of the writer they expressed legal parentage, not paternity, in fact, might be misunderstood by thoughtless readers. The first step was perhaps the insertion of the relative clause. The second, the insertion as in S2 of a second relative, “she who,” as a subject to ἐένσ. The third, the substitution of τνἄδαΜρα for ᾧμητυεσ M. by assimilation to v. 19 ὁἀὴ ατς ἀή being used as there in the sense of “betrothed husband,” and the substitution of the passive for the active in the following clause.
1:18-25. His Supernatural Birth
(P) 1:18-25. And the birth of the Christ was in this manner: His mother Mary being betrothed to Joseph, before that they came together,. she was found with child of the Holy Spirit.] γνσςhere means birth, begetting, as in Gen_31:13, Rth_2:11, Luk_1:14; cf. also Hdt. 1204 669. Since γνσςhas been used in 1:1 in a different sense, and since γνηςis the common term for birth, we should expect the latter here.—μητυθίη] Betrothal according to Jewish marriage law constituted a legal relationship which could only be dissolved by legal means. See Merx, Die vier Evangelien, ii. 1, 9 ff. The narrative in this respect rests on an accurate knowledge of Jewish civil law.—πεμτςἁίυ For the omission of the article, cf. Blass, p. 149.—πὶ ἤ cf. Blass, p. 229.
(P) 19. And, Joseph her husband, being a righteous man, and (yet) not wishing to disgrace her, was minded to put her away secretly.]—ὁἀὴ ατς According to Jewish law, a betrothed woman was already the wife of her betrothed husband; cf. Merx, op. cit. p. 10.—δκις i.e. God-fearing, and a keeper of the law. Mary’s condition seemed to make the fulfilment of their contract of marriage impossible for a religious man.—μ θλνδιμτσι On the other hand, he did not wish to expose her to shame. διμτσιoccurs besides only Col_2:15, Asc. Is. in Am. Pap. i. I. viii. 21.διμτσό occurs on the Rosetta Stone.—λθαἂοῦα] Appeal to the courts for a divorce would expose Mary to public ignominy, and make her liable to severe penalties. Refusal to carry out the contract of marriage would leave her and her child in disgrace in the house of her parents. The latter seemed the more merciful course, and Joseph determined, therefore, to repudiate her by private arrangement.
(P) 20. And whilst he purposed this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, Joseph, son of David, fear not to lake Mary thy wife: for that which is begotten in her is of the Holy Spirit.]—ἰο] Exclusive of quotations, ἰο occurs 30 times in Mt., 29 in Lk., 7 in Mk.; κὶἰό, 28 in Mt., 26 in Lk., 0 in Mk.—κτ ὄα] 6 times in Mt., not elsewhere in NT; cf. Ditt. Syll. 780. 5, 781. 4, 782. 4.—πρλβῖ] According to Jewish law, marriage begun in the betrothal, was completed in the “taking” of the bride to the house of her husband; cf. Merx, op. cit. p. 11.
(P) 21. And she shalt bear a son, and thou shall call His name Jesus: for He shall save His people from their sins.] Ἰσῦ is the Greek form of יהַֹּׁor ישוע, “Jehovah is salvation”; cf. Philo, De Mut. Nom. i. 597:Ἰσῦ δ στρακρο, ἕεςὄοατςἀίτς—ατςγρσσιτνλὸ ατῦἀὸτνἁατῶ ατν cf. Psa_129:8 κὶατςλτώεα τνἸρὴ ἐ πσντνἀοινατῦ For τξτιδ υὸ κὶκλσι τ ὄοαατῦ cf. Gen_17:9 τξτίσιυὸ κὶκλσι τ ὄοαατῦ
(O) 22. And all this has come to pass, in order that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying.] The formula ἵα(ὅω) πηωῇτ ῥθνrecurs 2:15, 23, 4:14, 8:17, 13:17, 13:35, 21:4, cf. 26:56. ττ ἐλρθ τ ῥθνoccurs 2:17, 27:9. The quotations thus introduced are for the most part free renderings of the Hebrew. They are sometimes composite in character. The formula occurs in Jewish writings. Cf. Bacher, Exeget. Terminol. der Jü Traditionsliteratur, i. 171. γγν here and 21:4, 26:56 is used from the writer’s standpoint. Contrast Joh_19:36.
(O) 23. Behold, the virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and they shall call His name Immanuel, which is being interpreted, With us is God.] The quotation comes from Isa_7:14, and is given according to the rendering of the LXX., with the exception that κλσι of the LXX. (σιא—στ Q*), which would not suit this context, is altered into κλσυι. For ἕε (LXX. אA Q), λμεα is read by LXX. B. There are signs that the view that Isaiah was using current mythological terms, and intended his הלהto carry with it the sense of supernatural birth, is rightly regaining ground. Cf. Jeremias, Babylonisches im Neuen Testament, p. 47; and Gressmann, Der Ursprung der Israelitisch-jü Eschatologie, p. 270 ff. In any case, the LXX. translators already interpreted the passage in this sense, and the fact that the later Greek translators substituted νᾶι for πρέο, and that there are no traces of the supernatural birth of the Messiah in the later Jewish literature, is due to anti-Christian polemic. Cf. Just. Mart. Trypho, xliii., lxvii. It is probable that the editor is here, as elsewhere, adapting words of the O.T. to a tradition which he had before him.1
(P) 24, 25. And Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took his wife: and knew her not until she bore a son: and he called His name Jesus.]
For the redundant and Semitic use of ἐεθί see Dalman. Words of Jesus, 23, 36. The imperfect ἐίωκνis against the tradition of perpetual virginity.
18. Χιτῦ So a b c d S1 S2; Irenæ III. xi. 8, xvi. 2; Tert. de Carne Christi, xxii. This Western reading is probably right. Nowhere in the N.T. is the article used before Ἰς Χ. B. has ʼρτῦἸσῦ an assimilation to the later usage of S. Paul. אC al Ox have τῦδ Ἰσῦρ The variation in the position of Ἰσῦis against its originality.
γνσς So אB. C al Ox γνσςhere means begetting (see above), whilst in 1:1 it has another meaning. The early translators differ in their treatment of the word. The latins render by generatio in both verses. The Syriac S1 S2 render in v. 1 by “generation,” in this verse rightly by “birth.” But γνηι was more common to the latter sense, and is therefore substituted here by E K L al.—μητυεσς Add γρE K L al Omit, אB. C* Z Ox, latt S1 S2.
19. ὀἀὴ ατς Om. S2—διμτσι So א B. Z Ox; Eus. Quæ i. 3. The word is very rare. It occurs in Col_2:15 and in Asc. Is. in Am. Pap. 1. i. viii. 21. Here it presumably means to expose to open and notorious disgrace. διμτσό on the Rosetta Stone means “inspection.” Cf Herwerden, Lex. Græ Suppl. p. 190. א C E K L al substitute the more common πρδιμτσι which occurs in the LXX. 5 times, Num_25:4, Est_4:17, Jer_13:22, Eze_28:17, Dan_2:5; Ps.-Son_2:14, in Polyb. and Plut.
20. τνγνῖἀσν S2 has “thy betrothed.” Cf. the omission of ὁἁἠ ατς v. 19.
21. λὸ ατῦ S2 has “the world”.—κλσι] S2 “shall be called.”
22. ὃο] Om. S1 S2.
24. τνγνῖαατῦ S2 substitutes “Mary.”
25. οκἐίωκνατνS2 has “purely was dwelling with her.” S1 k omit οκἐίωκνατνἔςο.—υό] So אB. Z S1 S2 k. τνυὸ ατςτνπωόοο is substituted by C D al by assimilation to Luk_2:7.—ἐάεε] S2 has “she called.” On the Syriac VSS in these verses, see Burkitt, op. cit. p. 261 ff.
E editorial passages.
LXX. The Septuagint Version.
Dalm. Dalman.
Luc. Lucian.
B. Babylonian Talmud.
Jos. Josephus.
1 In 1 Esd 1:32 reference is made to τνἸχνα υὸ Ισίυ Here Jehoahaz is meant. We might suppose that Mt. also meant Jehoahaz by τνἸχνα, and that his κὶτὺ ἀεφὺ ατῦwas a summary way of describing Jehoiakim; Jehoiachin and Zedekiah, of whom the first and third were brothers of Jehoahaz, whilst the second was his nephew, if it were not for the fact that in v. 12 Ἰχνα is clearly Jehoiachin. For confusion between Jehoiakim and Jehoiachin cf. 1 Esd 1:41, where the latter is called Ἰαεμ
Anth. P. Anthologia Palatina.
al i.e. with other uncial MSS.
Ox A papyrus fragment, containing Mat_1:1-9. Mat_1:12. Mat_1:14-20, published in Oxyrhynchus Papyri, i.
S Syriac version: Curetonian.
M the Second Gospel.
S Syriac version: Harclean.
S Syriac version: Jerusalem Lectionary.
S Syriac version: Sinaitic MS.
P Palestinian traditions.
Hdt. Herodotus.
Asc. Is. Ascension of Isaiah.
Am. Pap. Amherst Papyri.
Ditt. Dittenberger Sylloge.
O quotations from the Old Testament borrowed from a collection of Messianic prophecies. See pp.61 f.
Just. Mart. Justin Martyr.
1 See Briggs, “Criticism and the Dogma of the Virgin-Birth,” in North Amer. Rev., June 1906.
Tert. Tertullian.
L the Matthæ Logia.
Eus. Eusebius.
Ps.-Sol. The Psalms of Solomon.
Polyb. Polybius.
Plut. Plutarch.