Chris Weimer

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you were responding on the follow-up discussion.

yummyfur

No Problem Chris. I was reading those posts now and the seperate topic you started as well, and the section of Matthew where he qoutes Psalm 110. I'm not sure which thread to post this under, but if you read this section of Matthew(end of chapter 22), you could use it to argue that perhaps, as you speculate in the other thread, the geneology was added to Matthew at a later time. The reason is that clearly in this section of Matthew(end of chapter 22), Jesus seems to be saying that the Messiah's descent from David is not important or even what people should be looking for. This is in marked contrast to the long geneology at the begining of Matthew, which obviously makes Jesus's descent from David very important.

Also it's strange, but the context around Matthew's qoute of Psalm 110, makes it seem that he is using something similar to the LXX version, but when he actually qoutes it, the text does not follow the LXX version, but more the Masoretic, and in fact kind of cripples Jesus's argument: 1) because it's not clear the Spirit of David is speaking and 2) because though Jesus says David calls the Messiah "my Lord", in fact the qoute he gives, it's unclear if such a thing occurs. In the LXX version both these points are crystal clear, so why does Matthew seem to know the LXX version by the points he is trying to make in the surrounding text, but then use something that seems closer to the Masoretic, when he qoutes it? Is it possible the original text didn't have the qoute, and it was added in later (but from the wrong tradition), so that readers wouldn't have to remember or look up the text, or maybe it was a marginal note, that got worked into the text.

There is a marked difference between the LXX version and the Masoretic (a common problem with Psalms) especially the first line which changes the context of the whole Psalm. I would have to go back and read Hebrews more thouroughly, to see if it can be clearly seen wether Hebrews is using something similar to the LXX or the Masoretic. Also does anyone know if there is a Dead Sea Scroll version of this Psalm, or any other versions of this Psalm?

I guess one could argue that the text of Matthew might have had the part in Chapter 22 added in later from Mark 12:35-38, though they are not identical, they make similar points, with the same qoute.

Aspirin99

Very interesting guys. I see what you are saying. The difference is subtle, but it's there. He would not have had to have had Matthew or Luke. As Wells says regarding the broader matter, it's really a soteriological requirement of early Christians to show Jesus being from the tribe of Judah. The Gospels only follow this natural soteriological requirement.

Chris Weimer

Its feasible, and now I'm bording on likely. Without the genealogy, Matthew loses 50% of his Jewishness. Just like Luke, perhaps Marcion had a closer reading and it was "historicized" by adding the genealogies there. Then again, I think whoever tacked on the genealogy to Matthew unintentially added the Judaistic character to the gospel.

Right, which is what I was pointing out here.