Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Gundulf · 12-29-2006, 07:58 AM

OK, interestingly enough, Matthew opens up his story of Jesus not with the birth, etc., but with the geneology of Jesus' family tree. And traces the men, as would be common enough, I suppose.

But he mentions a couple of the mothers, and in so doing drags all kinds of dirt from the Old Testament into the spotlight - he mentions for instance that David's son was Solomon, whose mother had been Uriah's wife... (Doesn't even mention her by name, just mention's her former husband, who David had cheated on and then murdered). Kind of calling attention to the dirty deed.

Why would he do that?

Coleslaw · 12-29-2006, 08:13 AM

Raymond E. Brown, in The Birth of the Messiah:A Commentary on the Infancy Gospels of Matthew and Luke (or via: amazon.co.uk), discusses just that point in Chapter 3, "Matthew's Purpose", section A3, "Why Bring on the Ladies?" He discusses 3 proposals:

Quote:

The first proposal, already espoused by Jerome . . . is that the four women were regarded as sinners, and their inclusion foreshadowed for Matthew's readers the role of Jesus as savior of sinful men.

Brown goes on to discuss some drawbacks of that view, principally that it was not clear that the Jews of the time "would have understood the women as sinners".

Quote:

The second proposal, one made popular by Luther . . . [was] that the women were regarded as foreigners and were included by Matthew to show that Jesus, the Jewish Messiah, was related by ancestory to the Gentiles.

Brown goes on to discuss objections to that proposal-that the women supposedly foreshadowed the role of Mary, who was not a foreigner, and that they would not be considered foreigners but proselytes and converts. The third proposal is one Brown endorses and I'll get to it next post.

John Kesler · 12-29-2006, 08:26 AM

The argument that I find most persuasive is that advanced by John C. Hutchison, as quoted here:

Quote:

...Matthew intentionally cited four women in his genealogy to draw attention not to four persons, but to four Old Testament stories that illustrate a common point...in each case a Gentile showed extraordinary faith in contrast to Jews who were greatly lacking in their faith. The faith of Tamar versus that of Judah, of Rahab versus that of the wilderness generation, and of Ruth versus that of the Israelites in the time of the judges was displayed at crucial times in Israel's history when Gentiles demonstrated more faith than Jews in response to God. Mention of "the wife of Uriah" rather than [Bathsheba's] name was probably meant to focus attention on Uriah and his faith in contrast to that of David...

Coleslaw · 12-29-2006, 08:26 AM

Okay, continuing on from Brown, Chapter 3, A3 "Why bring on the ladies?"

Quote:

The third proposal, which has considerable following today [today being 1976, when the book's foreward was written], finds two common elements in the four OT women, elements they share with Mary: (a) there is something extraordinary or irregular in the union they share with their partners- a union which, although it may have seemed scandalous to outsiders, continued the blessed lineage of the Messiah; (b) the women showed initiative or played an important role in God's plan and so came to be considered the instrument of God's provenance or of His Holy Spirit. These women were held up as examples of how God uses the unexpected to triumph over human obstacles and intervenes on behalf of His planned Messiah. It is the combination of the scandalous or irregular union and of divine intervention through the women that explains best Matthew's choices in the genealogy.

And he goes on. This is the view that Brown endorses, adding, "but we should not rule out a subordinate motif stemming from the second proposal."

As noted, the book is 30 years old, so I don't know what view is held by scholars today, but that's Brown's view, FWIW.

Coleslaw · 12-29-2006, 09:18 AM

Here's a link to a Jewish commentary on Matthew 1:6, the verse about Uriah's wife. The author goes into a lot of detail about David and BatSheva, maybe more than you want:
http://www.kosherjudaism.com/matt0106.pdf

Chris Weimer · 12-29-2006, 01:32 PM

From an old blogpost of mine:

Quote:

Found among the names of 41 men are five women: Θαμαρ, Ραχαβ, Ρουθ, η του Ουριου, and Μαριας. Proponents of the theory that the genealogy is of Mary often use the women mentioned as evidence that Matthew was feminine-friendly.

The first woman, Thamar, is the daughter-in-law of Judah. As the story goes, Judah sees her and mistakes her to be a harlot. He then “knows” her, to use the Biblical euphemism, and when she is found pregnant, Judah realizes that he was the father, having given her his bracelets, staff, and signet beforehand. He then proclaims her to be righteous.8 The key here seems to be redemption and righteousness out of sin.

Rachab, the second on the list, was a harlot of Jericho who helped Joshua overcome the city by hiding his spies. For that act, her life was spared.9 Matthew may have known the Epistle to the Hebrews, since its author also commends her. Again, we see righteousness and redemption out of a sinful lifestyle.10

Ruth was the third woman listed. Instead of prostitution, her “crime” was that she was from Moab and not from one of the tribes of Israel.11 Her inclusion may be a sign that Matthew wanted to extend the ministry of Jesus to Gentiles, since without this Gentile there would be no David, hence no Jesus.

The phrase “η του Ουριου” refers to Bathsheba, the woman married to Uriah whom David committed adultery with.12 There is nothing exceptionally forgiving about her, but this may be why her name is not said directly.

The final woman was by necessity Mary, the mother of Jesus. Her importance is actually understated in Matthew’s gospel, but being the mother of Jesus, even to the point of being called “η αλλη Μαρια”13 later in the gospel, she could not have been left out.

angela2 · 12-29-2006, 02:15 PM

I always considered it a argument against what would later be called docetism. The argument being that not only was Jesus human but that some of his maternal ancestors were way less than pefect.

Coleslaw · 12-29-2006, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Last edited by Toto : Today at 12:06 PM. Reason: add amazon url

Why?

David B · 12-29-2006, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by angela2

I always considered it a argument against what would later be called docetism. The argument being that not only was Jesus human but that some of his maternal ancestors were way less than pefect.

Gorblimey, Angela, you've lost me there.

David B (off to search for docetism)

David B · 12-29-2006, 02:52 PM

And back, after only the briefest of skims.

I used the catholic one (second on google) rather than wiki(first)

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05070c.htm

Do I sum it up rightly as saying that it is the docrine that Christ was all god, rather than simultaneously all man and all god?

David B

12-29-2006, 07:58 AM	#1
Gundulf Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Spain Posts: 2,902	Matthew's Christmas story OK, interestingly enough, Matthew opens up his story of Jesus not with the birth, etc., but with the geneology of Jesus' family tree. And traces the men, as would be common enough, I suppose. But he mentions a couple of the mothers, and in so doing drags all kinds of dirt from the Old Testament into the spotlight - he mentions for instance that David's son was Solomon, whose mother had been Uriah's wife... (Doesn't even mention her by name, just mention's her former husband, who David had cheated on and then murdered). Kind of calling attention to the dirty deed. Why would he do that?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-29-2006, 09:18 AM	#5
Coleslaw Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: The cornfield Posts: 555	Here's a link to a Jewish commentary on Matthew 1:6, the verse about Uriah's wife. The author goes into a lot of detail about David and BatSheva, maybe more than you want: http://www.kosherjudaism.com/matt0106.pdf

12-29-2006, 02:15 PM	#7
angela2 Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: boston Posts: 3,687	I always considered it a argument against what would later be called docetism. The argument being that not only was Jesus human but that some of his maternal ancestors were way less than pefect.

12-29-2006, 02:52 PM	#10
David B Contributor Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Wales Posts: 11,620	And back, after only the briefest of skims. I used the catholic one (second on google) rather than wiki(first) http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05070c.htm Do I sum it up rightly as saying that it is the docrine that Christ was all god, rather than simultaneously all man and all god? David B

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.